Search

Background and Aims: Accurate bowel preparation assessment is essential for determining colonoscopy screening intervals. Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation are at a high risk of missing >5 mm adenomas and should undergo an early repeat colonoscopy. In this study, we used artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate bowel preparation and validated the ability of the system to accurately identify patients who are at high risk of having >5 mm adenomas missed due to inadequate bowel preparation., Methods: This prospective, single-center, observational study was conducted at the Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, from October 8, 2021, to November 9, 2022. Eligible patients who underwent screening colonoscopy were consecutively enrolled. The AI assessed bowel preparation using the e-Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (e-BBPS) while endoscopists made evaluations using BBPS. If both BBPS and e-BBPS deemed preparation adequate, the patient immediately underwent a second colonoscopy; otherwise, the patient underwent bowel re-cleansing before the second colonoscopy., Results: Among the 393 patients, 72 adenomas >5 mm in size were detected; 27 adenomas >5 mm in size were missed. In unqualified-AI patients, the >5 mm adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly higher than in qualified-AI patients (35.71% vs 13.19% [P = .0056]; odds ratio [OR], .2734 [95% CI, .1139-.6565]), as were the AMR (50.89% vs 20.79% [P < .001]; OR, .2532 [95% CI, .1583-.4052]) and >5 mm polyp miss rate (35.82% vs 19.48% [P = .0152]; OR, .4335 [95% CI, .2288-.8213])., Conclusions: This study confirmed that patients classified as inadequate by AI exhibited an unacceptable >5 mm AMR, providing key evidence for implementing AI in guiding bowel re-cleansing and potentially standardizing future colonoscopy screening. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05145712.)., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors disclosed no financial relationships. This study was funded by the Science and Technology Achievement Transformation Platform Construction Project of Ministry of Education (to H.Y.) and the Public Health Research Project of Futian District, Shenzhen (nos. FTWS2021056, FTWS2023001, FTWS2023028; and Sun Yat-sen Eighth Affiliated Hospital Clinical Research Program, grant no. 202301, to H.C). The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: EGD is essential for GI disorders, and reports are pivotal to facilitating postprocedure diagnosis and treatment. Manual report generation lacks sufficient quality and is labor intensive. We reported and validated an artificial intelligence-based endoscopy automatic reporting system (AI-EARS)., Methods: The AI-EARS was designed for automatic report generation, including real-time image capturing, diagnosis, and textual description. It was developed using multicenter datasets from 8 hospitals in China, including 252,111 images for training, 62,706 images, and 950 videos for testing. Twelve endoscopists and 44 endoscopy procedures were consecutively enrolled to evaluate the effect of the AI-EARS in a multireader, multicase, crossover study. The precision and completeness of the reports were compared between endoscopists using the AI-EARS and conventional reporting systems., Results: In video validation, the AI-EARS achieved completeness of 98.59% and 99.69% for esophageal and gastric abnormality records, respectively, accuracies of 87.99% and 88.85% for esophageal and gastric lesion location records, and 73.14% and 85.24% for diagnosis. Compared with the conventional reporting systems, the AI-EARS achieved greater completeness (79.03% vs 51.86%, P < .001) and accuracy (64.47% vs 42.81%, P < .001) of the textual description and completeness of the photo-documents of landmarks (92.23% vs 73.69%, P < .001). The mean reporting time for an individual lesion was significantly reduced (80.13 ± 16.12 seconds vs 46.47 ± 11.68 seconds, P < .001) after the AI-EARS assistance., Conclusions: The AI-EARS showed its efficacy in improving the accuracy and completeness of EGD reports. It might facilitate the generation of complete endoscopy reports and postendoscopy patient management. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05479253.)., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: False positives (FPs) pose a significant challenge in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection during colonoscopy. The study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the impact of computer‐aided polyp detection (CADe) systems' FPs on endoscopists. Methods: The model's FPs were categorized into four gradients: 0–5, 5–10, 10–15, and 15–20 FPs per minute (FPPM). Fifty‐six colonoscopy videos were collected for a crossover study involving 10 endoscopists. Polyp missed rate (PMR) was set as primary outcome. Subsequently, to further verify the impact of FPPM on the assistance capability of AI in clinical environments, a secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China from July 1 to October 15, 2020, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) as primary outcome. Results: Compared with routine group, CADe reduced PMR when FPPM was less than 5. However, with the continuous increase of FPPM, the beneficial effect of CADe gradually weakens. For secondary analysis of RCT, a total of 956 patients were enrolled. In AI‐assisted group, ADR is higher when FPPM ≤ 5 compared with FPPM > 5 (CADe group: 27.78% vs 11.90%; P = 0.014; odds ratio [OR], 0.351; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.152–0.812; COMBO group: 38.40% vs 23.46%, P = 0.029; OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.199–0.916). After AI intervention, ADR increased when FPPM ≤ 5 (27.78% vs 14.76%; P = 0.001; OR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.231–0.690), but no statistically significant difference was found when FPPM > 5 (11.90% vs 14.76%, P = 0.788; OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.514–2.403). Conclusion: The level of FPs of CADe does affect its effectiveness as an aid to endoscopists, with its best effect when FPPM is less than 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bleeding risk factors for gastroesophageal varices (GEV) detected by endoscopy in cirrhotic patients determine the prophylactical treatment patients will undergo in the following 2 years. We propose a methodology for measuring the risk factors. We create an artificial intelligence system (ENDOANGEL-GEV) containing six models to segment GEV and to classify the grades (grades 1–3) and red color signs (RC, RC0-RC3) of varices. It also summarizes changes in the above results with region in real time. ENDOANGEL-GEV is trained using 6034 images from 1156 cirrhotic patients across three hospitals (dataset 1) and validated on multicenter datasets with 11009 images from 141 videos (dataset 2) and in a prospective study recruiting 161 cirrhotic patients from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (dataset 3). In dataset 1, ENDOANGEL-GEV achieves intersection over union values of 0.8087 for segmenting esophageal varices and 0.8141 for gastric varices. In dataset 2, the system maintains fairly accuracy across images from three hospitals. In dataset 3, ENDOANGEL-GEV surpasses attended endoscopists in detecting RC of GEV and classifying grades (p < 0.001). When ranking the risk of patients combined with the Child‒Pugh score, ENDOANGEL-GEV outperforms endoscopists for esophageal varices (p < 0.001) and shows comparable performance for gastric varices (p = 0.152). Compared with endoscopists, ENDOANGEL-GEV may help 12.31% (16/130) more patients receive the right intervention. We establish an interpretable system for the endoscopic diagnosis and risk stratification of GEV. It will assist in detecting the first bleeding risk factors accurately and expanding the scope of quantitative measurement of diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]