Numerous studies have accelerated the knowledge expansion on the role of gut microbiota in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the precise mechanisms behind host-microbe cross-talk remain largely undefined, due to the complexity of the human intestinal ecosystem and multiple external factors. In this review, we introduce the interactome concept to systematically summarize how intestinal dysbiosis is involved in IBD pathogenesis in terms of microbial composition, functionality, genomic structure, transcriptional activity, and downstream proteins and metabolites. Meanwhile, this review also aims to present an updated overview of the relevant mechanisms, high-throughput multi-omics methodologies, different types of multi-omics cohort resources, and computational methods used to understand host-microbiota interactions in the context of IBD. Finally, we discuss the challenges pertaining to the integration of multi-omics data in order to reveal host-microbiota cross-talk and offer insights into relevant future research directions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly evolving presence in all fields and industries, with the ability to both improve quality and reduce the burden of human effort. Gastroenterology is a field with a focus on diagnostic techniques and procedures, and AI and big data have established and growing roles to play. Alongside these opportunities are challenges, which will evolve in parallel.

Quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy is a major determinant of its effectiveness. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to enhance quality monitoring and improve endoscopy outcomes. This article reviews the current literature on AI algorithms that have been developed for endoscopy quality assessment.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown immense potential in the field of medicine, but its actual effectiveness and safety still need to be validated through clinical trials. Currently, the research themes, methodologies, and development trends of AI-related clinical trials remain unclear, and further exploration of these studies will be crucial for uncovering AI's practical application potential and promoting its broader adoption in clinical settings.

To analyze the current status, hotspots, and trends of published clinical research on AI applications.

Publications related to AI clinical applications were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Relevant data were extracted using VOSviewer 1.6.17 to generate visual cooperation network maps for countries, organizations, authors, and keywords. Burst citation detection for keywords and citations was performed using CiteSpace 5.8.R3 to identify sudden surges in citation frequency within a short period, and the theme evolution was analyzed using SciMAT to track the development and trends of research topics over time.

A total of 22,583 articles were obtained from the Web of Science database. Seven-hundred and thirty-five AI clinical application research were published by 1764 institutions from 53 countries. The majority of publications were contributed by the United States, China, and the UK. Active collaborations were noted among leading authors, particularly those from developed countries. The publications mainly focused on evaluating the application value of AI technology in the fields of disease diagnosis and classification, disease risk prediction and management, assisted surgery, and rehabilitation. Deep learning and chatbot technologies were identified as emerging research hotspots in recent studies on AI applications.

A total of 735 articles on AI in clinical research were analyzed, with publication volume and citation counts steadily increasing each year. Institutions and researchers from the United States contributed the most to the research output in this field. Key areas of focus included AI applications in surgery, rehabilitation, disease diagnosis, risk prediction, and health management, with emerging trends in deep learning and chatbots. This study also provides detailed and intuitive information about important articles, journals, core authors, institutions, and topics in the field through visualization maps, which will help researchers quickly understand the current status, hotspots, and trends of artificial intelligence clinical application research. Future clinical trials of artificial intelligence should strengthen scientific design, ethical compliance, and interdisciplinary and international cooperation and pay more attention to its practical clinical value and reliable application in diverse scenarios.

BACKGROUND : Timely detection of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) remains challenging. While computer-aided detection (CADe) systems have been developed to assist endoscopists, their effectiveness depends heavily on the quality of the endoscopic procedure. This study introduces a novel computer-aided quality (CAQ) system for BE, evaluating its stand-alone performance and integration with a CADe system. METHOD : The CAQ system was developed using 7,463 images from 359 BE patients. It assesses objective quality parameters (e. g., blurriness, illumination) and subjective parameters (mucosal cleanliness, esophageal expansion) and can exclude low-quality images when integrated with a CADe system.To evaluate CAQ stand-alone performance, the Endoscopic Image Quality test set, consisting of 647 images from 51 BE patients across 8 hospitals, was labeled for objective and subjective quality. To assess the benefit of the CAQ system as a preprocessing filter of a CADe system, the Barrett CADe test set was developed. It consisted of 956 video frames from 62 neoplastic patients and 557 frames from 35 non-dysplastic patients, in 12 Barrett referral centers. RESULTS : As stand-alone tool, the CAQ system achieved Cohen's Kappa scores of 0.73, 0.91, and 0.89 for objective quality, mucosal cleanliness, and esophageal expansion, comparable to inter-annotator scores of 0.73, 0.93, and 0.83. As preprocessing filter, the CAQ system improved CADe sensitivity from 82 % to 90 % and AUC from 87 % to 91 %, while maintaining specificity at 75 %. CONCLUSION : This study presents the first CAQ system for automated quality control in BE. The system effectively distinguishes poorly from well-visualized mucosa and enhances neoplasia detection when integrated with CADe.

Background and Study Aim: Colonoscopy holds the highest volume of all endoscopic procedures, allowing for large colonoscopy databases to serve as valuable datasets for quality assurance. We aimed to build a comprehensive colonoscopy database for quality assurance and the training of future AIs. Materials and Methods: As part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial, a designated, onsite medical student was used to acquire procedural and patient-specific data, ensuring a high level of data integrity. The following data were thereby collected for all colonoscopies: full colonoscopy vides, colonoscope position (XYZ-coordinates), intraprocedural timestamps, pathological report, endoscopist description, endoscopist planning, and patient-reported discomfort. Results: A total of 1447 patients were included from the 1st of February 2022 to the 21st of November 2023; 1191 colonoscopies were registered as completed, 88 were stopped due to inadequate bowel cleansing, and 41 were stopped due to patient discomfort. Of the 1191 completed colonoscopies, 601 contained polypectomies (50.4%), and 590 did not (49.6%). Comparing colonoscopies with polypectomies to those without the withdrawal time (caecum to extubating the scope) was significantly longer for all parts of the colon (p values < 0.001), except the transverse colon (p value = 0.92). The database was used to train an AI, automatically and objectively evaluating bowel preparation. Conclusions: We established the most thorough database in colonoscopy with previously inaccessible information, indicating that the transverse colon differs from the other parts of the colon in terms of withdrawal time for procedures with polypectomies. To further explore these findings and reach the full potential of the database, an AI evaluating bowel preparation was developed. Several research partners have been identified to collaborate in the development of future AIs.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key performance measure with variability among endoscopists. Artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy could reduce this variability and has shown to improve ADR. This study assessed the impact of AI on ADR among Danish endoscopists of varying experience levels.

We conducted a prospective, quasi-randomized, controlled, multicenter trial involving patients aged 18 and older undergoing screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy at four centers. Participants were assigned to AI-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius, Medtronic) or conventional colonoscopy. Endoscopists were classified as experts (> 1000 colonoscopies) or non-experts (≤ 1000 colonoscopies). The primary outcome was ADR. We performed a subgroup analysis stratified on endoscopist experience and a subset analysis of the screening population.

A total of 795 patients were analyzed: 400 in the AI group and 395 in the control group. The AI group demonstrated a significantly higher ADR than the control group (59.1% vs. 46.6%, P < 0.001). The increase was significant among experts (59.9% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.002) but not among non-experts. AI assistance significantly improved ADR (74.4% vs. 58.1%, P = 0.003) in screening colonoscopies. Polyp detection rate (PDR) was also higher in the AI group (69.8% vs. 56.2%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the non-neoplastic resection rate (NNRR) (15.1% vs. 17.1%, P = 0.542).

AI-assisted colonoscopy significantly increased ADR by 12.5% overall, with a notable 16.3% increase in the screening population. The unchanged NNRR indicates that the higher PDR was due to increased ADR, not unnecessary resections.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and colonic Crohn's disease, are at an increased risk of developing colonic dysplasia and neoplasia. Multiple risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of colonic neoplasia in IBD, including but not limited to underlying disease extent, severity, duration, and concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis. The overall risk of colonic neoplasia in IBD is decreasing but surveillance is still warranted in patients with high-risk features. In this review, we will discuss the epidemiology, pathogenesis, risk factors, approach to surveillance, and management of colonic neoplasia in IBD.

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems may increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. However, the variable results of CADe effects in different RCTs warrant investigation into factors influencing these results.

Investigate the different variables possibly affecting the impact of CADe-assisted colonoscopy and its effect on ADR.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases until July 2023 for RCTs reporting performance of CADe systems in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The main outcome was pooled ADR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to obtain the pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI)). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a meta-regression analysis using both univariable and multivariable mixed-effects models. Potential explanatory variables included factors influencing adenoma prevalence, such as patient gender, age, and colonoscopy indication. We also included both key (ADR), and minor (Withdrawal time) performance measures considered as quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Twenty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 19,077 patients were include. ADR was higher in the CADe group (46 % [95 % CI 39-52]) than in the standard colonoscopy group (38 % [95 % CI 31-46]) with a risk ratio of 1.22 [95 % CI 1.14-1.29]); and a substantial level of heterogeneity (I2 = 67.69 %). In the univariable meta-regression analysis, patient age, ADR in control arms, and withdrawal time were the strongest predictors of CADe effect on ADR (P < .001). In multivariable meta-regression, ADR in control arms, and withdrawal time were simultaneous significant predictors of the proportion of the CADe effect on ADR.

The substantial level of heterogeneity found appeared to be associated with variability in colonoscopy quality performances across the studies, namely ADR in control arm, and withdrawal time.

Machine learning and its specialized forms, such as Artificial Neural Networks and Convolutional Neural Networks, are increasingly being used for detecting and managing gastrointestinal conditions. Recent advancements involve using Artificial Neural Network models to enhance predictive accuracy for severe lower gastrointestinal (LGI) bleeding outcomes, including the need for surgery. To this end, artificial intelligence (AI)-guided predictive models have shown promise in improving management outcomes. While much literature focuses on AI in early neoplasia detection, this review highlights AI's role in managing LGI and small bowel disorders, including risk stratification for LGI bleeding, quality control, evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease, and video capsule endoscopy reading. Overall, the integration of AI into routine clinical practice is still developing, with ongoing research aimed at addressing current limitations and gaps in patient care.

High-quality colonoscopy reduces the risks of colorectal cancer by increasing the adenoma detection rate. Routine use of an automatic quality control system (AQCS) to assist in colorectal adenoma detection should be considered.

To evaluate the effect of an AQCS on the adenoma detection rate among colonoscopists who were moderate- and low-level detectors during routine colonoscopy.

This multicenter, single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 centers in China from August 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022. Data were analyzed from March 1 to June 30, 2023. Individuals aged 18 to 80 years were enrolled. Exclusion criteria were a history of inflammatory bowel disease, advanced colorectal cancer, and polyposis syndromes; known colorectal polyps without complete removal previously; a history of colorectal surgery; known stenosis or obstruction with contraindication for biopsy or prior failed colonoscopy; pregnancy or lactation; and refusal to participate. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis was used.

Standard colonoscopy or AQCS-assisted colonoscopy.

Adenoma detection rate.

A total of 1254 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.21 [12.10] years; 674 [53.7%] male) were randomized (627 standard colonoscopy, 627 AQCS-assisted colonoscopy). Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher adenoma detection rate in the AQCS-assisted group vs standard colonoscopy group (32.7% vs 22.6%; relative risk [RR], 1.60; 95% CI, 1.23-2.09; P < .001). The adenoma detection rates were significantly higher in the AQCS group when considering pathology (nonadvanced adenomas, 30.1% vs 21.2%; RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.16-1.99; P = .002), and morphology (flat or sessile, 29.3% vs 20.4%, RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.16-2.00; P = .003). Use of AQCS significantly increased the adenoma detection rate of both the lower-level detectors (30.0% vs 20.0%; RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.24-2.35; P = .001) and the medium-level detectors (38.1% vs 27.7%; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.43; P = .02). Similar increases were found for adenoma detection rates in the academic and nonacademic centers (academic: 29.3% vs 20.8%; RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.10-2.29; P = .01; nonacademic: 36.1% vs 24.5%; RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23-2.46; P = .002). The number of adenomas per colonoscopy was significantly higher in the AQCS-assisted group (0.86 vs 0.48; RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91; P = .001). The mean withdrawal time without intervention was slightly increased with AQCS assistance (6.78 vs 6.46 minutes; RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.26-1.52; P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

In this randomized clinical trial, AQCS assistance during routine colonoscopy increased adenoma detection rates and several related polyp parameters compared with standard colonoscopy in the lower- and medium-level detectors in academic and nonacademic settings. Routine use of AQCS to assist in colorectal adenoma detection and quality improvement should be considered.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04901130.

The real-world effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems during colonoscopies remains uncertain. We assessed the effectiveness of the novel CADe system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device (ENAD), in enhancing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and other quality indicators in real-world clinical practice.

We enrolled patients who underwent elective colonoscopies between May 2022 and October 2022 at a tertiary healthcare center. Standard colonoscopy (SC) was compared to ENAD-assisted colonoscopy. Eight experienced endoscopists performed the procedures in randomly assigned CADe- and non-CADe-assisted rooms. The primary outcome was a comparison of ADR between the ENAD and SC groups.

A total of 1,758 sex- and age-matched patients were included and evenly distributed into two groups. The ENAD group had a significantly higher ADR (45.1% vs. 38.8%, p=0.010), higher sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) (5.7% vs. 2.5%, p=0.001), higher mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (0.78±1.17 vs. 0.61±0.99; incidence risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.42), and longer withdrawal time (9.0±3.4 vs. 8.3±3.1, p<0.001) than the SC group. However, the mean withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups in cases where no polyps were detected (6.9±1.7 vs. 6.7±1.7, p=0.058).

ENAD-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the ADR, APC, and SSLDR in real-world clinical practice, particularly for smaller and nonpolypoid adenomas.

Despite notable advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) that enable complex systems to perform certain tasks more accurately than medical experts, the impact on patient-relevant outcomes remains uncertain. To address this gap, this systematic review assesses the benefits and harms associated with AI-related algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems used by healthcare professionals, compared to standard care.

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we included interventional and observational studies published as peer-reviewed full-text articles that met the following criteria: human patients; interventions involving algorithmic decision-making systems, developed with and/or utilizing machine learning (ML); and outcomes describing patient-relevant benefits and harms that directly affect health and quality of life, such as mortality and morbidity. Studies that did not undergo preregistration, lacked a standard-of-care control, or pertained to systems that assist in the execution of actions (e.g., in robotics) were excluded. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar for studies published in the past decade up to 31 March 2024. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools, and reporting transparency with CONSORT-AI and TRIPOD-AI. Two researchers independently managed the processes and resolved conflicts through discussion. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023412156) and the study protocol has been published.

Out of 2,582 records identified after deduplication, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cohort study met the inclusion criteria, covering specialties such as psychiatry, oncology, and internal medicine. Collectively, the studies included a median of 243 patients (IQR 124-828), with a median of 50.5% female participants (range 12.5-79.0, IQR 43.6-53.6) across intervention and control groups. Four studies were classified as having low risk of bias, seven showed some concerns, and another seven were assessed as having high or serious risk of bias. Reporting transparency varied considerably: six studies showed high compliance, four moderate, and five low compliance with CONSORT-AI or TRIPOD-AI. Twelve studies (63%) reported patient-relevant benefits. Of those with low risk of bias, interventions reduced length of stay in hospital and intensive care unit (10.3 vs. 13.0 days, p = 0.042; 6.3 vs. 8.4 days, p = 0.030), in-hospital mortality (9.0% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.018), and depression symptoms in non-complex cases (45.1% vs. 52.3%, p = 0.03). However, harms were frequently underreported, with only eight studies (42%) documenting adverse events. No study reported an increase in adverse events as a result of the interventions.

The current evidence on AI-related ADM systems provides limited insights into patient-relevant outcomes. Our findings underscore the essential need for rigorous evaluations of clinical benefits, reinforced compliance with methodological standards, and balanced consideration of both benefits and harms to ensure meaningful integration into healthcare practice.

This study did not receive any funding.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently.

A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements.

Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

The methodology in colon polyp labeling in establishing database for ma-chine learning is not well-described and standardized. We aimed to find out the best annotation method to generate the most accurate model in polyp detection.

3542 colonoscopy polyp images were obtained from endoscopy database of a tertiary medical center. Two experienced endoscopists manually annotated the polyp with (1) exact outline segmentation and (2) using a standard rectangle box close to the polyp margin, and extending 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% longer in both width and length of the standard rectangle for AI modeling setup. The images were randomly divided into training and validation sets in 4:1 ratio. U-Net convolutional network architecture was used to develop automatic segmentation machine learning model. Another unrelated verification set was established to evaluate the performance of polyp detection by different segmentation methods.

Extending the bounding box to 20% of the polyp margin represented the best performance in accuracy (95.42%), sensitivity (94.84%) and F1-score (95.41%). Exact outline segmentation model showed the excellent performance in sensitivity (99.6%) and the worst precision (77.47%). The 20% model was the best among the 6 models. (confidence interval = 0.957-0.985; AUC = 0.971).

Labelling methodology affect the predictability of AI model in polyp detection. Extending the bounding box to 20% of the polyp margin would result in the best polyp detection predictive model based on AUC data. It is mandatory to establish a standardized way in colon polyp labeling for comparison of the precision of different AI models.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted medical imaging, particularly in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems (CADe and CADx) are thought to enhance the quality of colonoscopy procedures.

Colonoscopy is essential for colorectal cancer screening but often misses a significant percentage of adenomas. AI-assisted systems employing deep learning offer improved detection and differentiation of colorectal polyps, potentially increasing adenoma detection rates by 8%-10%. The main benefit of CADe is in detecting small adenomas, whereas it has a limited impact on advanced neoplasm detection. Recent advancements include real-time CADe systems and CADx for histopathological predictions, aiding in the differentiation of neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions. Biases such as the Hawthorne effect and potential overdiagnosis necessitate large-scale clinical trials to validate the long-term benefits of AI. Additionally, novel concepts such as computer-aided quality improvement systems are emerging to address limitations facing current CADe systems.

Despite the potential of AI for enhancing colonoscopy outcomes, its effectiveness in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality remains unproven. Further prospective studies are essential to establish the overall utility and clinical benefits of AI in colonoscopy.

Controlling colonoscopic quality is important in the detection of colon polyps during colonoscopy as it reduces the overall long-term colorectal cancer risk. Artificial intelligence has recently been introduced in various medical fields. In this study, we aimed to validate a previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided detection (CADe) algorithm called ALPHAON® and compare outcomes with previous studies that showed that AI outperformed and assisted endoscopists of diverse levels of expertise in detecting colon polyps.

We used the retrospective data of 500 still images, including 100 polyp images and 400 healthy colon images. In addition, we validated the CADe algorithm and compared its diagnostic performance with that of two expert endoscopists and six trainees from Gachon University Gil Medical Center. After a washing-out period of over 2 weeks, endoscopists performed polyp detection on the same dataset with the assistance of ALPHAON®.

The CADe algorithm presented a high capability in detecting colon polyps, with an accuracy of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99), sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.97), specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), and AUC of 0.967. When evaluating and comparing the polyp detection ability of ALPHAON® with that of endoscopists with different levels of expertise (regarding years of endoscopic experience), it was found that ALPHAON® outperformed the experts in accuracy (0.97, 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99), sensitivity (0.91, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.97), and specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99). After a washing-out period of over 2 weeks, the overall capability significantly improved for both experts and trainees with the assistance of ALPHAON®.

The high performance of the CADe algorithm system in colon polyp detection during colonoscopy was verified. The sensitivity of ALPHAON® led to it outperforming the experts, and it demonstrated the ability to enhance the polyp detection ability of both experts and trainees, which suggests a significant possibility of ALPHAON® being able to provide endoscopic assistance.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have significantly impacted the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, with applications spanning a wide range of clinical indications. The central goals for AI in GI endoscopy are to improve endoscopic procedural performance and quality assessment, optimize patient outcomes, and reduce administrative burden. Despite early progress, such as Food and Drug Administration approval of the first computer-aided polyp detection system in 2021, there are numerous important challenges to be faced on the path toward broader adoption of AI algorithms in clinical endoscopic practice.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of computer-aided detection (CADe) system-enhanced colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy suggest increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and decreased adenoma miss rate (AMR), but the effect on detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) is unclear.

To conduct a systematic review to compare performance of CADe-enhanced and conventional colonoscopy.

Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched through February 2024.

Published RCTs comparing CADe-enhanced and conventional colonoscopy.

Average adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and ACN per colonoscopy were primary outcomes. Adenoma detection rate, AMR, and ACN detection rate (ACN DR) were secondary outcomes. Balancing outcomes included withdrawal time and resection of nonneoplastic polyps (NNPs). Subgroup analyses were done by neural network architecture.

Forty-four RCTs with 36 201 cases were included. Computer-aided detection-enhanced colonoscopies have higher average APC (12 090 of 12 279 [0.98] vs. 9690 of 12 292 [0.78], incidence rate difference [IRD] = 0.22 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.28]) and higher ADR (7098 of 16 253 [44.7%] vs. 5825 of 15 855 [36.7%], rate ratio [RR] = 1.21 [CI, 1.15 to 1.28]). Average ACN per colonoscopy was similar (1512 of 9296 [0.16] vs. 1392 of 9121 [0.15], IRD = 0.01 [CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), but ACN DR was higher with CADe system use (1260 of 9899 [12.7%] vs. 1119 of 9746 [11.5%], RR = 1.16 [CI, 1.02 to 1.32]). Using CADe systems resulted in resection of almost 2 extra NNPs per 10 colonoscopies and longer total withdrawal time (0.53 minutes [CI, 0.30 to 0.77]).

Statistically significant heterogeneity in quality and sample size and inability to blind endoscopists to the intervention in included studies may affect the performance estimates.

Computer-aided detection-enhanced colonoscopies have increased APC and detection rate but no difference in ACN per colonoscopy and a small increase in ACN DR. There is minimal increase in procedure time and no difference in performance across neural network architectures.

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42023422835).

Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated.

In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe.

In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off.

Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Artificial intelligence (AI), the wide spectrum of technologies aiming to give machines or computers the ability to perform human-like cognitive functions, began in the 1940s with the first abstract models of intelligent machines. Soon after, in the 1950s and 1960s, machine learning algorithms such as neural networks and decision trees ignited significant enthusiasm. More recent advancements include the refinement of learning algorithms, the development of convolutional neural networks to efficiently analyze images, and methods to synthesize new images. This renewed enthusiasm was also due to the increase in computational power with graphical processing units and the availability of large digital databases to be mined by neural networks. AI soon began to be applied in medicine, first through expert systems designed to support the clinician's decision and later with neural networks for the detection, classification, or segmentation of malignant lesions in medical images. A recent prospective clinical trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of AI alone compared with a double reading by two radiologists on screening mammography. Natural language processing, recurrent neural networks, transformers, and generative models have both improved the capabilities of making an automated reading of medical images and moved AI to new domains, including the text analysis of electronic health records, image self-labeling, and self-reporting. The availability of open-source and free libraries, as well as powerful computing resources, has greatly facilitated the adoption of deep learning by researchers and clinicians. Key concerns surrounding AI in healthcare include the need for clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy, the perception of AI tools as 'black boxes' that require greater interpretability and explainability, and ethical issues related to ensuring fairness and trustworthiness in AI systems. Thanks to its versatility and impressive results, AI is one of the most promising resources for frontier research and applications in medicine, in particular for oncological applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool across several specialties, namely gastroenterology, where it has the potential to optimize both diagnosis and treatment as well as enhance patient care. Coloproctology, due to its highly prevalent pathologies and tremendous potential to cause significant mortality and morbidity, has drawn a lot of attention regarding AI applications. In fact, its application has yielded impressive outcomes in various domains, colonoscopy being one prominent example, where it aids in the detection of polyps and early signs of colorectal cancer with high accuracy and efficiency. With a less explored path but equivalent promise, AI-powered capsule endoscopy ensures accurate and time-efficient video readings, already detecting a wide spectrum of anomalies. High-resolution anoscopy is an area that has been growing in interest in recent years, with efforts being made to integrate AI. There are other areas, such as functional studies, that are currently in the early stages, but evidence is expected to emerge soon. According to the current state of research, AI is anticipated to empower gastroenterologists in the decision-making process, paving the way for a more precise approach to diagnosing and treating patients. This review aims to provide the state-of-the-art use of AI in coloproctology while also reflecting on future directions and perspectives.

We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user's experience and polyp characteristics.

We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed.

The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively).

CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user's experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy.

A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points).

Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

The study aims to introduce a novel indicator, effective withdrawal time (WTS), which measures the time spent actively searching for suspicious lesions during colonoscopy and to compare WTS and the conventional withdrawal time (WT).

Colonoscopy video data from 472 patients across two hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. WTS was computed through a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and manual verification. The results obtained through WTS were compared with those generated by the AI system. Patients were categorized into four groups based on the presence of polyps and whether resections or biopsies were performed. Bland Altman plots were utilized to compare AI-computed WTS with manually verified WTS. Scatterplots were used to illustrate WTS within the four groups, among different hospitals, and across various physicians. A parallel box plot was employed to depict the proportions of WTS relative to WT within each of the four groups.

The study included 472 patients, with a median age of 55 years, and 57.8% were male. A significant correlation with manually verified WTS (r = 0.918) was observed in AI-computed WTS. Significant differences in WTS/WT among the four groups were revealed by the parallel box plot (P < 0.001). The group with no detected polyps had the highest WTS/WT, with a median of 0.69 (interquartile range: 0.40, 0.97). WTS patterns were found to be varied between the two hospitals and among senior and junior physicians.

A promising alternative to traditional WT for quality control and training assessment in colonoscopy is offered by AI-assisted computation of WTS.

Benign ulcerative colorectal diseases (UCDs) such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, ischemic colitis, and intestinal tuberculosis share similar phenotypes with different etiologies and treatment strategies. To accurately diagnose closely related diseases like UCDs, we hypothesize that contextual learning is critical in enhancing the ability of the artificial intelligence models to differentiate the subtle differences in lesions amidst the vastly divergent spatial contexts.

White-light colonoscopy datasets of patients with confirmed UCDs and healthy controls were retrospectively collected. We developed a Multiclass Contextual Classification (MCC) model that can differentiate among the mentioned UCDs and healthy controls by incorporating the tissue object contexts surrounding the individual lesion region in a scene and spatial information from other endoscopic frames (video-level) into a unified framework. Internal and external datasets were used to validate the model's performance.

Training datasets included 762 patients, and the internal and external testing cohorts included 257 patients and 293 patients, respectively. Our MCC model provided a rapid reference diagnosis on internal test sets with a high averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (image-level: 0.950 and video-level: 0.973) and balanced accuracy (image-level: 76.1% and video-level: 80.8%), which was superior to junior endoscopists (accuracy: 71.8%, P < .0001) and similar to experts (accuracy: 79.7%, P = .732). The MCC model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.988 and balanced accuracy of 85.8% using external testing datasets.

These results enable this model to fit in the routine endoscopic workflow, and the contextual framework to be adopted for diagnosing other closely related diseases.

Artificial intelligence (AI) using deep learning systems has recently been utilized in various medical fields. In the field of gastroenterology, AI is primarily implemented in image recognition and utilized in the realm of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In GI endoscopy, computer-aided detection/diagnosis (CAD) systems assist endoscopists in GI neoplasm detection or differentiation of cancerous or noncancerous lesions. Several AI systems for colorectal polyps have already been applied in colonoscopy clinical practices. In esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a few CAD systems for upper GI neoplasms have been launched in Asian countries. The usefulness of these CAD systems in GI endoscopy has been gradually elucidated.

In this review, we outline recent articles on several studies of endoscopic AI systems for GI neoplasms, focusing on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), gastric cancer (GC), and colorectal polyps. In ESCC and EAC, computer-aided detection (CADe) systems were mainly developed, and a recent meta-analysis study showed sensitivities of 91.2% and 93.1% and specificities of 80% and 86.9%, respectively. In GC, a recent meta-analysis study on CADe systems demonstrated that their sensitivity and specificity were as high as 90%. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) also showed that the use of the CADe system reduced the miss rate. Regarding computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems for GC, although RCTs have not yet been conducted, most studies have demonstrated expert-level performance. In colorectal polyps, multiple RCTs have shown the usefulness of the CADe system for improving the polyp detection rate, and several CADx systems have been shown to have high accuracy in colorectal polyp differentiation.

Most analyses of endoscopic AI systems suggested that their performance was better than that of nonexpert endoscopists and equivalent to that of expert endoscopists. Thus, endoscopic AI systems may be useful for reducing the risk of overlooking lesions and improving the diagnostic ability of endoscopists.

The ENDOANGEL (EN) computer-assisted detection technique has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing the detection rate of colorectal adenomas during colonoscopies. However, its efficacy in identifying missed adenomas during subsequent colonoscopies remains unclear. Thus, we herein aimed to compare the adenoma miss rate (AMR) between EN-assisted and standard colonoscopies. Data from patients who underwent a second colonoscopy (EN-assisted or standard) within 6 months between September 2022 and May 2023 were analyzed. The EN-assisted group exhibited a significantly higher AMR (24.3% vs 11.9%, P = .005) than the standard group. After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable analysis revealed that the EN-assisted group had a better ability to detect missed adenomas than the standard group (odds ratio = 2.89; 95% confidence interval = 1.14-7.80, P = .029). These findings suggest that EN-assisted colonoscopy represents a valuable advancement in improving AMR compared with standard colonoscopy. The integration of EN-assisted colonoscopy into routine clinical practice may offer significant benefits to patients requiring hospital resection of lesions following adenoma detection during their first colonoscopy.

Diagnostic errors impact patient health and healthcare costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) shows promise in mitigating this burden by supporting Medical Doctors in decision-making. However, the mere display of excellent or even superhuman performance by AI in specific tasks does not guarantee a positive impact on medical practice. Effective AI assistance should target the primary causes of human errors and foster effective collaborative decision-making with human experts who remain the ultimate decision-makers. In this narrative review, we apply these principles to the specific scenario of AI assistance during colonoscopy. By unraveling the neurocognitive foundations of the colonoscopy procedure, we identify multiple bottlenecks in perception, attention, and decision-making that contribute to diagnostic errors, shedding light on potential interventions to mitigate them. Furthermore, we explored how existing AI devices fare in clinical practice and whether they achieved an optimal integration with the human decision-maker. We argue that to foster optimal Human-AI collaboration, future research should expand our knowledge of factors influencing AI's impact, establish evidence-based cognitive models, and develop training programs based on them. These efforts will enhance human-AI collaboration, ultimately improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. The principles illuminated in this review hold more general value, extending their relevance to a wide array of medical procedures and beyond.

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

Deep learning models (DLMs) are applied across domains of health sciences to generate meaningful predictions. DLMs make use of neural networks to generate predictions from discrete data inputs. This study employs DLM on prechemotherapy cross-sectional imaging to predict patients' response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Adult patients with colorectal liver metastasis who underwent surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. A DLM was trained on computed tomography images using attention-based multiple-instance learning. A logistic regression model incorporating clinical parameters of the Fong clinical risk score was used for comparison. Both model performances were benchmarked against the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. A receiver operating curve was created and resulting area under the curve (AUC) was determined.

Ninety-five patients were included, with 33,619 images available for study inclusion. Ninety-five percent of patients underwent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan. Sixty percent of the patients were categorized as chemotherapy responders (30% reduction in tumor diameter). The DLM had an AUC of 0.77. The AUC for the clinical model was 0.41.

Image-based DLM for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases was superior to a clinical-based model. These results demonstrate potential to identify nonresponders to chemotherapy and guide select patients toward earlier curative resection.

Colorectal cancer is a significant global health concern, necessitating effective screening strategies to reduce its incidence and mortality rates. Colonoscopy plays a crucial role in the detection and removal of colorectal neoplastic precursors. However, there are limitations and variations in the performance of endoscopists, leading to missed lesions and suboptimal outcomes. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in endoscopy offers promising opportunities to improve the quality and efficacy of screening colonoscopies. In particular, AI applications, including computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided characterization (CADx), have demonstrated the potential to enhance adenoma detection and optical diagnosis accuracy. Additionally, AI-assisted quality control systems aim to standardize the endoscopic examination process. This narrative review provides an overview of AI principles and discusses the current knowledge on AI-assisted endoscopy in the context of screening colonoscopies. It highlights the significant role of AI in improving lesion detection, characterization, and quality assurance during colonoscopy. However, further well-designed studies are needed to validate the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of AI-assisted colonoscopy before its widespread implementation.

Improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been demonstrated with artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy. However, data on the real-world application of AI and its effect on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outcomes is limited.

To analyze the long-term impact of AI on a diverse at-risk patient population undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for positive CRC screening tests or symptoms.

AI software (GI Genius, Medtronic) was implemented into the standard procedure protocol in November 2022. Data was collected on patient demographics, procedure indication, polyp size, location, and pathology. CRC screening outcomes were evaluated before and at different intervals after AI introduction with one year of follow-up.

We evaluated 1008 colonoscopies (278 pre-AI, 255 early post-AI, 285 established post-AI, and 190 late post-AI). The ADR was 38.1% pre-AI, 42.0% early post-AI (P = 0.77), 40.0% established post-AI (P = 0.44), and 39.5% late post-AI (P = 0.77). There were no significant differences in polyp detection rate (PDR, baseline 59.7%), advanced ADR (baseline 16.2%), and non-neoplastic PDR (baseline 30.0%) before and after AI introduction.

In patients with an increased pre-test probability of having an abnormal colonoscopy, the current generation of AI did not yield enhanced CRC screening metrics over high-quality colonoscopy. Although the potential of AI in colonoscopy is undisputed, current AI technology may not universally elevate screening metrics across all situations and patient populations. Future studies that analyze different AI systems across various patient populations are needed to determine the most effective role of AI in optimizing CRC screening in clinical practice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly entering and transforming not only medical research but also clinical practice. In the last 10 years, new AI methods have enabled computers to perform visual tasks, reaching high performance and thereby potentially supporting and even outperforming human experts. This is in particular relevant for colorectal cancer (CRC), which is the 3rd most common cancer type in general, as along the CRC patient journey many complex visual tasks need to be performed: from endoscopy over imaging to histopathology; the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of CRC involve visual image analysis tasks.

In all these clinical areas, AI models have shown promising results by supporting physicians, improving accuracy, and providing new biological insights and biomarkers. By predicting prognostic and predictive biomarkers from routine images/slides, AI models could lead to an improved patient stratification for precision oncology approaches in the near future. Moreover, it is conceivable that AI models, in particular together with innovative techniques such as single-cell or spatial profiling, could help identify novel clinically as well as biologically meaningful biomarkers that could pave the way to new therapeutic approaches.

Here, we give a comprehensive overview of AI in colorectal cancer, describing and discussing these developments as well as the next steps which need to be taken to incorporate AI methods more broadly into the clinical care of CRC.

Most intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) result from surgeons' errors, and bleeding is the majority of iAEs. Recognizing active bleeding timely is important to ensure safe surgery, and artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential for detecting active bleeding and providing real-time surgical support. This study aimed to develop a real-time AI model to detect active intraoperative bleeding.

We extracted 27 surgical videos from a nationwide multi-institutional surgical video database in Japan and divided them at the patient level into three sets: training (n = 21), validation (n = 3), and testing (n = 3). We subsequently extracted the bleeding scenes and labeled distinctively active bleeding and blood pooling frame by frame. We used pre-trained YOLOv7_6w and developed a model to learn both active bleeding and blood pooling. The Average Precision at an Intersection over Union threshold of 0.5 (AP.50) for active bleeding and frames per second (FPS) were quantified. In addition, we conducted two 5-point Likert scales (5 = Excellent, 4 = Good, 3 = Fair, 2 = Poor, and 1 = Fail) questionnaires about sensitivity (the sensitivity score) and number of overdetection areas (the overdetection score) to investigate the surgeons' assessment.

We annotated 34,117 images of 254 bleeding events. The AP.50 for active bleeding in the developed model was 0.574 and the FPS was 48.5. Twenty surgeons answered two questionnaires, indicating a sensitivity score of 4.92 and an overdetection score of 4.62 for the model.

We developed an AI model to detect active bleeding, achieving real-time processing speed. Our AI model can be used to provide real-time surgical support.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly emerging in healthcare, yet applications in surgery remain relatively nascent. Here we review the integration of AI in the field of surgery, centering our discussion on multifaceted improvements in surgical care in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative space. The emergence of foundation model architectures, wearable technologies and improving surgical data infrastructures is enabling rapid advances in AI interventions and utility. We discuss how maturing AI methods hold the potential to improve patient outcomes, facilitate surgical education and optimize surgical care. We review the current applications of deep learning approaches and outline a vision for future advances through multimodal foundation models.

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems can efficiently detect polyps during colonoscopy. However, false-positive (FP) activation is a major limitation of CADe. We aimed to compare the rate and causes of FP using CADe before and after an update designed to reduce FP.

We analyzed CADe-assisted colonoscopy videos recorded between July 2022 and October 2022. The number and causes of FPs and excessive time spent by the endoscopist on FP (ET) were compared pre- and post-update using 1:1 propensity score matching.

During the study period, 191 colonoscopy videos (94 and 97 in the pre- and post-update groups, respectively) were recorded. Propensity score matching resulted in 146 videos (73 in each group). The mean number of FPs and median ET per colonoscopy were significantly lower in the post-update group than those in the pre-update group (4.2 ± 3.7 vs 18.1 ± 11.1; P < 0.001 and 0 vs 16 s; P < 0.001, respectively). Mucosal tags, bubbles, and folds had the strongest association with decreased FP post-update (pre-update vs post-update: 4.3 ± 3.6 vs 0.4 ± 0.8, 0.32 ± 0.70 vs 0.04 ± 0.20, and 8.6 ± 6.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.7, respectively). There was no significant decrease in the true positive rate (post-update vs pre-update: 95.0% vs 99.2%; P = 0.09) or the adenoma detection rate (post-update vs pre-update: 52.1% vs 49.3%; P = 0.87).

The updated CADe can reduce FP without impairing polyp detection. A reduction in FP may help relieve the burden on endoscopists.