A feasibility trial of computer-aided diagnosis for enteric lesions in capsule endoscopy

Table 1 Proportions of enteric lesions and non-lesions in 289 patients

Enteric lesion	No. of lesions and non-lesions	Proportion (%)
Non-lesion	86	26.7
Common lesion
Esoenteritis	42	13.0
Mucosal ulcer and erosion	47	14.6
Bleeding	61	18.9
Space-occupying lesion	28	8.7
Angioectasia
Telangiectasis	5	1.6
Angioectasia	32	9.9
Angioma	7	2.2
Rare lesion
Diverticulum	3	0.9
Parasite	5	1.7
Enteric stenosis	2	0.6
Intussusception	2	0.6
Enteric lymphangiectasis	2	0.6
Total	322	100.0

Table 2 Number of marked images in 289 patients

Group (n)	Total No. of images	No. of marked images	P
With lesion (236)	52 374 ± 4 865	4 156 ± 478b	< 0.001
Without lesion (86)	54 210 ± 3 739	4 219 ± 376d	< 0.001
P	> 0.10	> 0.10

^bP < 0.001, total No. of the images vs No. of the marked images in the group with lesions;

^dP < 0.001, total No. of the images vs No. of the marked images in the group without any lesions.

Table 3 Scanning time (ST) spent in each patient on marked images in 289 patients

Group (n)	ST for total images in each patient (h)	ST for marked images in each patient (h)	P
With lesion (236)	5.4 ± 1.2	1.2 ± 0.2b	< 0.001
Without lesion (86)	5.6 ± 1.3	1.3 ± 0.1d	< 0.001
P	> 0.10	> 0.10

^bP < 0.001, ST for the total images vs ST for the marked images by ISP in the group with lesions;

^dP < 0.001, ST for the total images vs ST for the marked images by ISP in the group without any lesions.

Table 4 Screened results (SR) of IPS in 289 patients

Enteric lesions	Effectiveness rate of SR (%)	False positive rate of SR (%)	P
Common lesion
Esoenteritis	33/42 (78.6)	188/280 (67.1)	> 0.05
Mucosal ulcer/erosion	31/47 (66.0)	191/275 (69.5)	> 0.05
Bleeding	56/61 (91.8)	121/261 (46.4)	> 0.05
Space-occupying lesion	12/28 (42.9)	96/294 (32.7)	> 0.05
Angioectasia
Telangiectasis	1/5 (20.0)	63/317 (19.9)	> 0.05
Angioectasia	3/32 (9.4)	37/290 (12.8)	> 0.05
Angioma	4/7 (57.1)	25/315 (7.9)	> 0.05
Rare lesion1	3/14 (21.4)	53/308 (17.2)	> 0.05

¹The samples of the rare lesions were not enough, so they were pooled together for the research.

Table 5 Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive/negative predictive value of SR for special lesions in 289 patients (%)

Enteric lesions	Sensitivity	Specificity	Accuracy	Positive pv	Negative pv
Common lesion
Esoenteritis	78.6	32.9	38.8	14.9	91.1
Mucosal 66.0ulcer/erosion		30.5	35.7	14.0	84.0
Bleeding	91.8	53.6	60.9	31.6	96.6
Space- occupying lesion	42.9	67.3	65.2	11.1	92.5
Angioectasia
Telangiectasis 20.0		80.1	79.2	1.6	98.4
Angioectasia	9.4	87.2	79.5	7.5	89.7
Angioma	57.1	92.1	91.3	13.8	98.9
Rare lesion1	21.4	82.8	80.1	5.4	5.9

pv: Predictive value.

¹Because the samples of the rare lesions were not enough, so they were pooled together for the research.