A9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO OPTIMIZE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED OPTICAL POLYP DIAGNOSIS

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled the development of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems which offer real-time endoscopic pathology prediction of colorectal polyps. However, the clinical benefit of CADx assisted optical diagnosis remains questionable due to lack of diagnostic ability improvement compared to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Aims This study aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a novel implementation framework in which optical diagnosis replaces pathology only if CADx and endoscopist agree on polyp diagnosis. We aimed to compare this proposed framework to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort undergoing optical polyp diagnosis at our center. Polyps measuring ≤5mm (diminutive) with available non CADx assisted and CADx assisted optical polyp diagnosis documentation were included in our analysis. In CADx assisted cases, first the CADx diagnostic output was documented, followed by the endoscopist’s final diagnosis after having seen the CADx diagnostic information. Only cases where the endoscopist agreed with the CADx output were retained for CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy for cases in which the endoscopist agreed with the CADx diagnostic output versus non CADx assisted OD, using pathology as a reference standard. Secondary outcomes included surveillance interval agreement, prevalence of high-confidence diagnoses, and rectosigmoid negative predictive value (NPV). Results A total of 817 polyps were included in our analysis. Endoscopists agreed with the CADx diagnostic output in 74.3% of cases. Using CADx-assisted optical diagnosis based on CADx and endoscopist diagnostic agreement, 326/439 diminutive polyps could undergo optical polyp diagnosis in the CADx assisted arm and 378/378 in the non CADx assisted OD arm. Using diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx as a framework for CADx assisted optical diagnosis demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, 82.8% (95% CI, 78.7-86.9), compared to accuracy of non CADx assisted optical diagnosis, 76.7% (95% CI, 71.3-80.0) (p=0.0256). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that using cases with diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx increases diagnostic accuracy for CADx-assisted OD implementation. Using this framework, CADx assisted OD outperforms non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Funding Agencies None

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwae059.009
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.24
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO OPTIMIZE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED OPTICAL POLYP DIAGNOSIS

Roupen Djinbachian, Daniel von Renteln, Megan Oleksiw
1 citations
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
1.24
article

A9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO OPTIMIZE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED OPTICAL POLYP DIAGNOSIS

Roupen Djinbachian, Daniel von Renteln, Megan Oleksiw
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled the development of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems which offer real-time endoscopic pathology prediction of colorectal polyps. However, the clinical benefit of CADx assisted optical diagnosis remains questionable due to lack of diagnostic ability improvement compared to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Aims This study aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a novel implementation framework in which optical diagnosis replaces pathology only if CADx and endoscopist agree on polyp diagnosis. We aimed to compare this proposed framework to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort undergoing optical polyp diagnosis at our center. Polyps measuring ≤5mm (diminutive) with available non CADx assisted and CADx assisted optical polyp diagnosis documentation were included in our analysis. In CADx assisted cases, first the CADx diagnostic output was documented, followed by the endoscopist’s final diagnosis after having seen the CADx diagnostic information. Only cases where the endoscopist agreed with the CADx output were retained for CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy for cases in which the endoscopist agreed with the CADx diagnostic output versus non CADx assisted OD, using pathology as a reference standard. Secondary outcomes included surveillance interval agreement, prevalence of high-confidence diagnoses, and rectosigmoid negative predictive value (NPV). Results A total of 817 polyps were included in our analysis. Endoscopists agreed with the CADx diagnostic output in 74.3% of cases. Using CADx-assisted optical diagnosis based on CADx and endoscopist diagnostic agreement, 326/439 diminutive polyps could undergo optical polyp diagnosis in the CADx assisted arm and 378/378 in the non CADx assisted OD arm. Using diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx as a framework for CADx assisted optical diagnosis demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, 82.8% (95% CI, 78.7-86.9), compared to accuracy of non CADx assisted optical diagnosis, 76.7% (95% CI, 71.3-80.0) (p=0.0256). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that using cases with diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx increases diagnostic accuracy for CADx-assisted OD implementation. Using this framework, CADx assisted OD outperforms non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Funding Agencies None

Journal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologyVol. 8(Supplement_1)
Université de Montréal (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
1.24
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.