dc.date.accessioned | 2024-02-14T07:56:59Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-02-14T07:56:59Z | |
dc.date.created | 2023-01-16T09:33:34Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Mori, Yuichi Wang, Pu Løberg, Magnus Misawa, Masashi Repici, Alessandro Spadaccini, Marco Correale, Loredana Antonelli, Giulio Yu, Honggang Gong, Dexin Ishiyama, Misaki Kudo, Shin-ei Kamba, Shunsuke Sumiyama, Kazuki Saito, Yutaka Nishino, Haruo Liu, Peixi Glissen Brown, Jeremy R. Mansour, Nabil M. Gross, Seth A. Kalager, Mette Bretthauer, Michael Rex, Douglas K. Sharma, Prateek Berzin, Tyler M. Hassan, Cesare . Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2022 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10852/108018 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background and Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. Methods We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%–9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%–12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%–4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16–1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%–7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%–8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%–2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01–1.47]). Conclusions The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs. | |
dc.description.abstract | Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials | |
dc.language | EN | |
dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.title | Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials | |
dc.title.alternative | ENEngelskEnglishImpact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.creator.author | Mori, Yuichi | |
dc.creator.author | Wang, Pu | |
dc.creator.author | Løberg, Magnus | |
dc.creator.author | Misawa, Masashi | |
dc.creator.author | Repici, Alessandro | |
dc.creator.author | Spadaccini, Marco | |
dc.creator.author | Correale, Loredana | |
dc.creator.author | Antonelli, Giulio | |
dc.creator.author | Yu, Honggang | |
dc.creator.author | Gong, Dexin | |
dc.creator.author | Ishiyama, Misaki | |
dc.creator.author | Kudo, Shin-ei | |
dc.creator.author | Kamba, Shunsuke | |
dc.creator.author | Sumiyama, Kazuki | |
dc.creator.author | Saito, Yutaka | |
dc.creator.author | Nishino, Haruo | |
dc.creator.author | Liu, Peixi | |
dc.creator.author | Glissen Brown, Jeremy R. | |
dc.creator.author | Mansour, Nabil M. | |
dc.creator.author | Gross, Seth A. | |
dc.creator.author | Kalager, Mette | |
dc.creator.author | Bretthauer, Michael | |
dc.creator.author | Rex, Douglas K. | |
dc.creator.author | Sharma, Prateek | |
dc.creator.author | Berzin, Tyler M. | |
dc.creator.author | Hassan, Cesare | |
cristin.unitcode | 185,52,11,0 | |
cristin.unitname | Avdeling for helseledelse og helseøkonomi | |
cristin.ispublished | true | |
cristin.fulltext | original | |
cristin.qualitycode | 1 | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 2107392 | |
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitation | info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology&rft.volume=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2022 | |
dc.identifier.jtitle | Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology | |
dc.identifier.volume | 21 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 949 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 959 | |
dc.identifier.pagecount | 0 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2022.08.022 | |
dc.type.document | Tidsskriftartikkel | |
dc.type.peerreviewed | Peer reviewed | |
dc.source.issn | 1542-3565 | |
dc.type.version | PublishedVersion | |
dc.relation.project | EC/H2020 101026196 | |