Felix Huang, Thea Iulia Dimbu, Douglas K Rex, Heiko Pohl, Cesare Hassan, Roupen Djinbachian, Victoire Michal, Dong Hyun Kim, Bilal Amani, Nahlah Haddouch, Sofie Fournier, Daniel von Renteln
{"title":"Diagnostic performance and agreement of auditors for evaluation of computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis: Prospective study.","authors":"Felix Huang, Thea Iulia Dimbu, Douglas K Rex, Heiko Pohl, Cesare Hassan, Roupen Djinbachian, Victoire Michal, Dong Hyun Kim, Bilal Amani, Nahlah Haddouch, Sofie Fournier, Daniel von Renteln","doi":"10.1055/a-2631-8030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Guidelines recommend independent auditing of diagnostic performance for clinical implementation of computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis (CADx). This study evaluated diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of auditors and offered guidance on conducting CADx audits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Images and videos of all ≤ 5-mm polyps from a large, prospective study with systematic activation of CADx were audited by three expert endoscopists. Experts performed independent, blinded diagnostic review including documentation of confidence level. The primary outcome was sensitivity of audit by three experts for high-confidence adenomas compared with pathology. Secondary outcomes included number of reviewers for optimal CADx auditing and interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred eighty-seven diminutive polyps were audited (510 patients). Sensitivity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.0-100) using three experts (Strategy A); 88.7% (95% CI 84.1-92.1) using two experts and one referee (Strategy B); 99% (95% CI 96-99.8), 98.8% (95% CI 95.4-99.8), and 99.4% (95% CI 96.3-100) using two-expert combinations (Strategy C); and 98.2% (95% CI 95.1-99.4), 97.3% (95% CI 94.0-98.9), and 88.9% (95% CI 83.6-92.7) for each expert individually (Strategy D). Among 266 pathology-based adenomas, Strategy A evaluated 160 polyps versus 196, 172, and 170 in Strategy C; and 220, 223, and 207 in Strategy D. Strategy B evaluated all 266 adenomas. Overall interobserver agreement was moderate (kappa 0.52), but very high for high-confidence adenomas (kappa 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Expert audit for evaluating CADx resulted in high sensitivity and interobserver agreement for high-confidence adenomas. Audit by two experts, with a third expert for arbitration, permitted audit of all polyps and effective assessment of CADx within clinical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a26318030"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2631-8030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and study aims: Guidelines recommend independent auditing of diagnostic performance for clinical implementation of computer-aided optical polyp diagnosis (CADx). This study evaluated diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of auditors and offered guidance on conducting CADx audits.
Methods: Images and videos of all ≤ 5-mm polyps from a large, prospective study with systematic activation of CADx were audited by three expert endoscopists. Experts performed independent, blinded diagnostic review including documentation of confidence level. The primary outcome was sensitivity of audit by three experts for high-confidence adenomas compared with pathology. Secondary outcomes included number of reviewers for optimal CADx auditing and interobserver agreement.
Results: Four hundred eighty-seven diminutive polyps were audited (510 patients). Sensitivity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.0-100) using three experts (Strategy A); 88.7% (95% CI 84.1-92.1) using two experts and one referee (Strategy B); 99% (95% CI 96-99.8), 98.8% (95% CI 95.4-99.8), and 99.4% (95% CI 96.3-100) using two-expert combinations (Strategy C); and 98.2% (95% CI 95.1-99.4), 97.3% (95% CI 94.0-98.9), and 88.9% (95% CI 83.6-92.7) for each expert individually (Strategy D). Among 266 pathology-based adenomas, Strategy A evaluated 160 polyps versus 196, 172, and 170 in Strategy C; and 220, 223, and 207 in Strategy D. Strategy B evaluated all 266 adenomas. Overall interobserver agreement was moderate (kappa 0.52), but very high for high-confidence adenomas (kappa 0.89).
Conclusions: Expert audit for evaluating CADx resulted in high sensitivity and interobserver agreement for high-confidence adenomas. Audit by two experts, with a third expert for arbitration, permitted audit of all polyps and effective assessment of CADx within clinical studies.
背景和研究目的:指南建议在临床实施计算机辅助光学息肉诊断(CADx)时对诊断表现进行独立审计。本研究评估了审计师的诊断绩效和观察者间的协议,并为进行CADx审计提供了指导。方法:由三名内窥镜专家审核一项大型前瞻性研究中所有≤5mm息肉的图像和视频,该研究系统地激活了CADx。专家进行了独立的盲法诊断审查,包括置信度文件。主要结果是三名专家对高置信度腺瘤的审计敏感性与病理学相比较。次要结局包括最佳CADx审计的审稿人数量和观察者间的一致性。结果:共检查小息肉487例(510例)。采用三名专家(策略A),灵敏度为99.4%(95%置信区间[CI] 96.0-100);88.7% (95% CI 84.1-92.1)采用两名专家和一名裁判(策略B);99% (95% CI 96-99.8)、98.8% (95% CI 95.4-99.8)和99.4% (95% CI 96.3-100)使用双专家组合(策略C);每位专家分别为98.2% (95% CI 95.1-99.4)、97.3% (95% CI 94.0-98.9)和88.9% (95% CI 83.6-92.7)(策略D)。在266例基于病理的腺瘤中,A策略评估了160例息肉,而C策略评估了196、172和170例;策略B评估了266个腺瘤。总体观察者间一致性为中等(kappa 0.52),但高置信度腺瘤的一致性非常高(kappa 0.89)。结论:评估CADx的专家审计对高置信度腺瘤具有高敏感性和观察者间的一致性。由两名专家进行审计,第三名专家进行仲裁,允许对所有息肉进行审计,并在临床研究中对CADx进行有效评估。