MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410113944 · doi:10.1111/den.15034

Artificial intelligence and colorectal neoplasia detection performances in patients with positive fecal immunochemical test: Meta‐analysis and systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410113944 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigestive Endoscopy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyAdenomaConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)GastroenterologyPopulationRelative riskColorectal adenomaColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The combination of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) followed by colonoscopy has established itself as one of the preferred population-based screening strategies. Despite extensive exploration of various techniques and technologies, their impact on adenoma detection rate has shown inconsistency across studies in this specific setting "FIT+ population." We aimed to assess the impact of the computer-aided detection (CADe) system in all randomized trials focused on this subpopulation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases until September 2023 for randomized controlled trials reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems for detection of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma per colonoscopy, serrated lesions, and nonneoplastic per colonoscopy. RESULTS: Ten randomized trials on 5421 patients were included. Adenoma detection rate was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (0.62 vs. 0.52; relative risk 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.31). CADe also resulted in higher detection performances of both adenomas (incidence rate ratio 1.16; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.24) and serrated lesions (incidence rate ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.38) at per-polyp analysis. No differences were found for advanced adenomas between the groups. On the other hand, more nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.45 vs. 0.34; mean difference 0.06; P = 0.026) in a comparable inspection time. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CADe during colonoscopy results in an increased detection of adenomas, and serrated lesions, in a FIT+ setting. The impact on advanced adenomas was not significant. Higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps were also reported.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it