MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S655 AI-Enhanced Colonoscopy Improves Adenoma Detection Without Delaying Procedure: Meta-Analysis of 9,500 Patients

2025· article· en· W4416031212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prince Shah-Riar, Sadia Afrin Naurin, Rishika Trivedi, Asif Zamir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyAdenomaOdds ratioConfidence intervalColorectal cancerRandomized controlled trialCohort studyFunnel plot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health challenge, with nearly 2 million new cases reported in 2020. Colonoscopy is the cornerstone of CRC prevention, and adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated performance metric inversely associated with interval CRC. Yet, ADR varies significantly among endoscopists. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems using artificial intelligence (AI) offer real-time support that may improve detection consistency. While single studies and trials suggest benefit, a robust synthesis across diverse settings is lacking. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (2000–2024) using terms such as “AI-assisted colonoscopy” and “adenoma detection.” Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing AI-assisted to standard colonoscopy and reporting ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and missed adenoma rate (MAR). Two independent reviewers assessed study quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test and funnel plots. Results: Thirty-eight studies (22 RCTs, 16 cohort studies) including 9,500 patients were analyzed. AI-assisted colonoscopy significantly increased ADR (31.5% vs 25.3%; odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% CI 1.35–1.62; P < 0.01) and PDR (48.2% vs 39.4%; OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.30–1.53; P < 0.01). MAR from tandem studies was significantly lower in the AI group (16.9% vs 24.5%; P = 0.01). Detection of diminutive adenomas (<5 mm; P = 0.02) and sessile serrated lesions (P = 0.03) also improved. No significant difference in withdrawal time was found (P = 0.07). Findings align with key multicenter trials including COLO-DETECT (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21–1.78; P < 0.0001). No significant publication bias was observed. Conclusion: AI-enhanced colonoscopy significantly improves ADR and reduces missed lesions, including subtle and flat polyps, without extending procedure time. These findings support routine AI integration into colorectal cancer screening to enhance diagnostic consistency and potentially reduce interval cancers.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.045
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→