User perceptions of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system in colonoscopy: a single-center exploratory survey study.

Seon Yeong Ko, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Bun Kim, Kyung Su Han, Dae Kyung Sohn
{"title":"User perceptions of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system in colonoscopy: a single-center exploratory survey study.","authors":"Seon Yeong Ko, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Bun Kim, Kyung Su Han, Dae Kyung Sohn","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2026.29.3.140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (AI-CADe) systems can improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, successful clinical implementation depends on diagnostic performance and user acceptance, usability, and workflow integration. This study evaluated user perceptions before and after the clinical implementation of AI-CADe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, repeated, cross-sectional descriptive survey evaluated the endoscopy unit staff perceptions of AI-CADe at the National Cancer Center. Two anonymous online surveys were administered before and 1 month after the system installation. The surveys assessed the perceived diagnostic benefits, workflow impact, user satisfaction, concerns regarding false-positive detection, dependence on AI, and factors influencing acceptance and continued use. The analyses were descriptive and exploratory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine and 25 participants completed the pre- and post-installation surveys, respectively. Positive responses regarding the interest in AI-CADe, perceived adenoma detection rate improvement, expected lesion removal, patient satisfaction, procedural satisfaction, and workflow impact were reported in both survey phases. Concerns regarding overdetection, unnecessary biopsies, and increased dependence on AI were also reported. Accuracy and sensitivity were the most frequently selected adoption factors, followed by cost and false-positive rates. Open-ended feedback included positive comments regarding lesion recognition, procedural support, and limitations related to repeated alerts, false-positive alarms, delayed detection, and system responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopy unit staff members showed favorable perceptions of AI-CADe and recognized its potential value in colonoscopy practice. However, concerns regarding false-positive detection, workflow integration, and dependence on AI indicate the need for user-centered optimization and long-term real-world evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":"29 3","pages":"140-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13583463/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2026.29.3.140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (AI-CADe) systems can improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, successful clinical implementation depends on diagnostic performance and user acceptance, usability, and workflow integration. This study evaluated user perceptions before and after the clinical implementation of AI-CADe.

Methods: This single-center, repeated, cross-sectional descriptive survey evaluated the endoscopy unit staff perceptions of AI-CADe at the National Cancer Center. Two anonymous online surveys were administered before and 1 month after the system installation. The surveys assessed the perceived diagnostic benefits, workflow impact, user satisfaction, concerns regarding false-positive detection, dependence on AI, and factors influencing acceptance and continued use. The analyses were descriptive and exploratory.

Results: Twenty-nine and 25 participants completed the pre- and post-installation surveys, respectively. Positive responses regarding the interest in AI-CADe, perceived adenoma detection rate improvement, expected lesion removal, patient satisfaction, procedural satisfaction, and workflow impact were reported in both survey phases. Concerns regarding overdetection, unnecessary biopsies, and increased dependence on AI were also reported. Accuracy and sensitivity were the most frequently selected adoption factors, followed by cost and false-positive rates. Open-ended feedback included positive comments regarding lesion recognition, procedural support, and limitations related to repeated alerts, false-positive alarms, delayed detection, and system responsiveness.

Conclusion: Endoscopy unit staff members showed favorable perceptions of AI-CADe and recognized its potential value in colonoscopy practice. However, concerns regarding false-positive detection, workflow integration, and dependence on AI indicate the need for user-centered optimization and long-term real-world evaluation.

结肠镜检查中基于人工智能的计算机辅助检测系统的用户感知:单中心探索性调查研究。
目的:基于人工智能(AI)的计算机辅助检测(AI- cade)系统可以提高结肠镜检查中腺瘤的检测。然而,成功的临床实施取决于诊断性能和用户接受度、可用性和工作流集成。本研究评估了AI-CADe临床实施前后的用户感知。方法:这项单中心、重复、横断面描述性调查评估了国家癌症中心内窥镜部门工作人员对AI-CADe的看法。在系统安装前和安装后1个月分别进行了两次匿名在线调查。调查评估了可感知的诊断益处、工作流程影响、用户满意度、对假阳性检测的关注、对人工智能的依赖以及影响接受和继续使用的因素。分析是描述性和探索性的。结果:分别有29名和25名参与者完成了安装前和安装后的调查。两个调查阶段都报告了对AI-CADe的兴趣、感知到的腺瘤检出率提高、预期的病变切除、患者满意度、程序满意度和工作流程影响等方面的积极反应。报告还对过度检测、不必要的活检和对人工智能的依赖增加表示担忧。准确性和灵敏度是最常被选择的采用因素,其次是成本和假阳性率。开放式反馈包括关于病变识别、程序支持以及与重复警报、假阳性警报、延迟检测和系统响应性相关的限制的积极评论。结论:内镜部门工作人员对AI-CADe表现出良好的认知,并认识到其在结肠镜检查实践中的潜在价值。然而,对误报检测、工作流集成和对人工智能的依赖的关注表明,需要以用户为中心的优化和长期的实际评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书