The broad use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its various applications have already shown significant impact in medicine and in everyday life. In gastroenterology, the most studied AI tools at present are computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx). These tools have been mainly assessed during colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and for the prediction of their histology based on their appearance. Their use aims to improve colonoscopy quality, standardize procedures, and potentially reduce costs. Data on CADe demonstrate clear benefits that are applicable to clinical practice. While CADx shows good diagnostic performance, its additional benefits in assisting endoscopists remain unclear.

The APAGE Position Statements aimed to provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices aligned with climate sustainability.

A taskforce convened by APAGE proposed provisional statements. Twenty-two gastroenterologists from the Asian Pacific region participated in online voting and consensus was assessed through an anonymized and iterative Delphi process.

There were five sections that addressed the rationale for climate action, the importance of adopting principles of waste management, clinical practice, gastrointestinal endoscopy, and issues related to advocacy and research. Sixteen statements achieved consensus and included the following: 1. APAGE recommends adopting prompt measures to reduce the carbon footprint of clinical practice due to the importance of climate action and its health cobenefits. 5. APAGE recommends adherence to professional clinical guidelines to optimize clinical care delivery in gastroenterology and hepatology to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures and tests. 8. APAGE recommends an emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and appropriate screening and surveillance, when resources are available, to reduce the environmental impact of managing more advanced diseases that require more intensive resources. 12. APAGE recommends that technological advances in endoscopic imaging and artificial intelligence, when available, be used to improve the precision of endoscopic diagnosis to reduce the risk of missed lesions and need for unnecessary biopsies. 13. APAGE recommends against the routine use of single-use endoscopes.

The position statements provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy that promote climate sustainability.

Colonoscopy, a crucial procedure for detecting and removing colorectal polyps, has seen transformative advancements through the integration of artificial intelligence, specifically in computer-aided detection (CADe) and diagnosis (CADx). These tools enhance real-time detection and characterization of lesions, potentially reducing human error, and standardizing the quality of colonoscopy across endoscopists. CADe has proven effective in increasing adenoma detection rate, potentially reducing long-term colorectal cancer incidence. However, CADe's benefits are accompanied by challenges, such as potentially longer procedure times, increased non-neoplastic polyp resections, and a higher surveillance burden. CADx, although promising in differentiating neoplastic and non-neoplastic diminutive polyps, encounters limitations in accuracy, particularly in the proximal colon. Real-world data also revealed gaps between trial efficacy and practical outcomes, emphasizing the need for further research in uncontrolled settings. Moreover, CADx limited specificity and binary output underscore the necessity for explainable artificial intelligence to gain endoscopists' trust. This review aimed to explore the benefits, harms, and limitations of artificial intelligence for colon cancer screening, surveillance, and treatment focusing on CADe and CADx systems for lesion detection and characterization, respectively, while addressing challenges in integrating these technologies into clinical practice.

Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) assists endoscopists in differentiating between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of polyp location (proximal vs. distal colon) on the diagnostic performance of CADx for ≤5 mm polyps.

We searched for studies evaluating the performance of real-time CADx alone (ie, independently of endoscopist judgement) for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps ≤5 mm. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal and distal colon. Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and the accuracy of the CADx alone. Distal colon was limited to the rectum and sigmoid.

We included 11 studies for analysis with a total of 7782 polyps ≤5 mm. CADx specificity was significantly lower in the proximal colon compared with the distal colon (62% vs 85%; risk ratio (RR), 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.84). Conversely, sensitivity was similar (89% vs 87%); RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03). The NPV (64% vs 93%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79) and accuracy (81% vs 86%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) were significantly lower in the proximal than distal colon, whereas PPV was higher in the proximal colon (87% vs 76%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17).

The diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps in the proximal colon is inadequate, exhibiting significantly lower specificity compared with its performance for distal polyps. Although current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for proximal polyps until more performant systems are developed specifically for these lesions.

 Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) enables the distinction between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy. We aimed to estimate the patient-level benefit and harm of CADx.

 We conducted a comparative analysis on data from the EndoBRAIN international clinical trial, evaluating the effect of optical diagnosis during colonoscopy with and without CADx. Three hypothetical scenarios were compared: "endoscopist-alone" and "CADx-assisted" leave-in-situ strategies (leaving non-neoplastic rectosigmoid polyps ≤ 5 mm), and "total removal" (removing all detected polyps). Primary outcomes included patient-level colonoscopy-related cost and surveillance interval agreement (colorectal cancer risk category). Estimates were calculated based on national reimbursement rates and guidelines in four countries.

 We analyzed 1134 patients (59 % men, median age 67 years) with 1716 polyps. Compared with total removal, the endoscopist-alone and CADx-assisted leave-in-situ strategies reduced the removed polyps per patient from 1.51 (95 %CI 1.48-1.54) to 1.18 (95 %CI 1.16-1.20) and 1.12 (95 %CI 1.00-1.14), respectively; however, 0.023 (95 %CI 0.015-0.033) and 0.021 (95 %CI 0.014-0.031) neoplasms per patient were left in situ, respectively. The mean colonoscopy cost decreased by $44 (endoscopist alone) and $46 (CADx assistance) in the USA, $22 and $19 in the UK, $21 and $19 in Japan, and $32 and $30 in Norway, respectively. Surveillance interval agreement decreased to 99.2 % (endoscopist alone) and 99.0 % (CADx assistance) in the USA, 99.8 % and 99.8 % in the UK, 97.9 % and 97.1 % in Japan, and 99.9 % and 99.9 % in Norway, respectively.

 Both endoscopist-alone and CADx-assisted optical diagnosis reduce colonoscopy costs. The risk of missed adenomas and surveillance interval deviations appear marginal.

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

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.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening cancer and precancerous lesions in the large intestine. Recently, remarkable advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of various computer-aided detection (CADe) systems for colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of AI for colonoscopy using CAD-EYEⓇ (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) to calculate the adenoma miss rate (AMR).

This randomized, open-label, single-center, tandem study was conducted at Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital from February 2022 to November 2022. Patients were randomly assigned to the CADe or non-CADe group. Immediately after the completion of the first endoscopy by an endoscopist, a new endoscopist was assigned to perform the second endoscopy. As a result, different endoscopists performed the examinations in a tandem fashion. A missed lesion was defined as a newly detected colorectal polyp by the second endoscopy. Finally, the AMR was compared between the two groups.

The study population comprised 48 patients in the CADe group and 46 patients in the non-CADe group. The AMR was 17.4% in the CADe group and 30.3% in the non-CADe group. Therefore, the AMR in the CADe group was statistically significantly lower than that in the non-CADe group (P=0.009).

The application of CAD-EYEⓇ to colonoscopy reduced the AMR. Overall, CAD-EYEⓇ might be useful for reducing missed colorectal adenomas.

The Mayo endoscopic subscore [MES] is the most popular endoscopic disease activity measure of ulcerative colitis [UC]. Artificial intelligence [AI]-assisted colonoscopy is expected to reduce diagnostic variability among endoscopists. However, no study has been conducted to ascertain whether AI-based MES assignments can help predict clinical relapse, nor has AI been verified to improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists.

This open-label, prospective cohort study enrolled 110 patients with UC in clinical remission. The AI algorithm was developed using 74 713 images from 898 patients who underwent colonoscopy at three centres. Patients were followed up after colonoscopy for 12 months, and clinical relapse was defined as a partial Mayo score > 2. A multi-video, multi-reader analysis involving 124 videos was conducted to determine whether the AI system reduced the diagnostic variability among six non-specialists.

The clinical relapse rate for patients with AI-based MES = 1 (24.5% [12/49]) was significantly higher [log-rank test, p = 0.01] than that for patients with AI-based MES = 0 (3.2% [1/31]). Relapse occurred during the 12-month follow-up period in 16.2% [13/80] of patients with AI-based MES = 0 or 1 and 50.0% [10/20] of those with AI-based MES = 2 or 3 [log-rank test, p = 0.03]. Using AI resulted in better inter- and intra-observer reproducibility than endoscopists alone.

Colonoscopy using the AI-based MES system can stratify the risk of clinical relapse in patients with UC and improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists.

The emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in automated endoscopic diagnosis represents a significant advancement in managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AI technologies are increasingly being applied to endoscopic imaging to enhance the diagnosis, prediction of severity, and progression of IBD and dysplasia-associated colitis surveillance. These AI-assisted endoscopy aim to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce variability of endoscopy imaging interpretations, and assist clinicians in decision-making processes. By leveraging AI, healthcare providers have the potential to offer more personalized and effective treatments, ultimately improving patient outcomes in IBD care.

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.

Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps is thoroughly investigated. However, studies on human-artificial intelligence interaction are lacking. Our aim was to investigate endoscopists' trust in CADx by evaluating whether communicating a calibrated algorithm confidence score improved trust.

Endoscopists optically diagnosed 60 colorectal polyps. Initially, endoscopists diagnosed the polyps without CADx assistance (initial diagnosis). Immediately afterward, the same polyp was again shown with a CADx prediction: either only a prediction (benign or premalignant) or a prediction accompanied by a calibrated confidence score (0-100). A confidence score of 0 indicated a benign prediction, 100 a (pre)malignant prediction. In half of the polyps, CADx was mandatory, and for the other half, CADx was optional. After reviewing the CADx prediction, endoscopists made a final diagnosis. Histopathology was used as the reference standard. Endoscopists' trust in CADx was measured as CADx prediction utilization: the willingness to follow CADx predictions when the endoscopists initially disagreed with the CADx prediction.

Twenty-three endoscopists participated. Presenting CADx predictions increased the endoscopists' diagnostic accuracy (69.3% initial vs 76.6% final diagnosis, P < .001). The CADx prediction was used in 36.5% (n = 183 of 501) of disagreements. Adding a confidence score led to lower CADx prediction utilization, except when the confidence score surpassed 60. Mandatory CADx decreased CADx prediction utilization compared to optional CADx. Appropriate trust-using correct or disregarding incorrect CADx predictions-was 48.7% (n = 244 of 501).

Appropriate trust was common, and CADx prediction utilization was highest for the optional CADx without confidence scores. These results express the importance of a better understanding of human-artificial intelligence interaction.

The resect-and-discard strategy allows endoscopists to replace post-polypectomy pathology with real-time prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy (optical diagnosis). We aimed to investigate the benefits and harms of implementing computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for polyp pathology into the resect-and-discard strategy.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to June 5, 2024, without language restrictions, for diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed the performance of real-time CADx systems, compared with histology, for the optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) in the entire colon. We synthesised data for three strategies: CADx-alone, CADx-unassisted, and CADx-assisted; when the endoscopist was involved in the optical diagnosis, we synthesised data exclusively from diagnoses for which confidence in the prediction was reported as high. The primary outcomes were the proportion of polyps that would have avoided pathological assessment (ie, the proportion optically diagnosed with high confidence; main benefit) and the proportion of polyps incorrectly predicted due to false positives and false negatives (main harm), directly compared between CADx-assisted and CADx-unassisted strategies. We used DerSimonian and Laird's random-effects model to calculate all outcomes. We used Higgins I2 to assess heterogeneity, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate certainty, and funnel plots and Egger's test to examine publication bias. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024508440.

We found 1019 studies, of which 11 (7400 diminutive polyps, 3769 patients, and 185 endoscopists) were included in the final meta-analysis. Three studies (1817 patients and 4086 polyps [2148 neoplastic and 1938 non-neoplastic]) provided data to directly compare the primary outcome measures between the CADx-unassisted and CADx-assisted strategies. We found no significant difference between the CADx-assisted and CADx-unassisted strategies for the proportion of polyps that would have avoided pathological assessment (90% [88-93], 3653 [89·4%] of 4086 polyps diagnosed with high confidence vs 90% [95% CI 85-94], 3588 [87·8%] of 4086 polyps diagnosed with high confidence; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·99-1·04; I2=53·49%; low-certainty evidence; Egger's test p=0·18). The proportion of incorrectly predicted polyps was lower with the CADx-assisted strategy than with the CADx-unassisted strategy (12% [95% CI 7-17], 523 [14·3%] of 3653 polyps incorrectly predicted with a CADx-assisted strategy vs 13% [6-20], 582 [16·2%] of 3588 polyps incorrectly diagnosed with a CADx-unassisted strategy; risk ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·98]; I2=0·00%; low-certainty evidence; Egger's test p=0·18).

CADx did not produce benefit nor harm for the resect-and-discard strategy, questioning its value in clinical practice. Improving the accuracy and explainability of CADx is desired.

European Commission (Horizon Europe), the Japan Society of Promotion of Science, and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro.

Colon polyp detection and removal via colonoscopy are essential for colorectal cancer screening and prevention. This study aimed to develop a colon polyp detection program based on the RetinaNet algorithm and verify its clinical utility. To develop the AI-assisted program, the dataset was fully anonymized and divided into 10 folds for 10-fold cross-validation. Each fold consisted of 9,639 training images and 1,070 validation images. Video data from 56 patients were used for model training, and transfer learning was performed using the developed still image-based model. The final model was developed as a real-time polyp-detection program for endoscopy. To evaluate the model's performance, a prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at six institutions to compare the polyp detection rates (PDR). A total of 805 patients were included. The group that utilized the AI model showed significantly higher PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR) than the group that underwent colonoscopy without AI assistance. Multivariate analysis revealed an OR of 1.50 for cases where polyps were detected. The AI-assisted polyp-detection program is clinically beneficial for detecting polyps during colonoscopy. By utilizing this AI-assisted program, clinicians can improve adenoma detection rates, ultimately leading to enhanced cancer prevention.

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) using artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to support the characterisation of colorectal lesions, which is clinically relevant for efficient colorectal cancer prevention. We conducted this study to assess the diagnostic performance of commercially available CAD systems.

This was a multicentre, prospective performance evaluation study. The endoscopist diagnosed polyps using white light imaging, followed by non-magnified blue light imaging (non-mBLI) and mBLI. AI subsequently assessed the lesions using non-mBLI (non-mAI), followed by mBLI (mAI). Eventually, endoscopists made the final diagnosis by integrating the AI diagnosis (AI+endoscopist). The primary endpoint was the accuracy of the AI diagnosis of neoplastic lesions. The diagnostic performance of each modality (sensitivity, specificity and accuracy) and confidence levels were also assessed.

Overall, 380 lesions from 139 patients were included in the analysis. The accuracy of non-mAI was 83%, 95% CI (79% to 87%), which was inferior to that of mBLI (89%, 95% CI (85% to 92%)) and mAI (89%, 95% CI (85% to 92%)). The accuracy (95% CI) of diagnosis by expert endoscopists using mAI (91%, 95% CI (87% to 94%)) was comparable to that of expert endoscopists using mBLI (91%, 95% CI (87% to 94%)) but better than that of non-expert endoscopists using mAI (83%, 95% CI (75% to 90%)). The level of confidence in making a correct diagnosis was increased when using magnification and AI.

The diagnostic performance of mAI for differentiating colonic lesions is comparable to that of endoscopists, regardless of their experience. However, it can be affected by the use of magnification as well as the endoscopists' level of experience.

The gap between endoscopy and histology is getting closer with the introduction of sophisticated endoscopic technologies. Furthermore, unprecedented advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled objective assessment of endoscopy and digital pathology, providing accurate, consistent, and reproducible evaluations of endoscopic appearance and histologic activity. These advancements result in improved disease management by predicting treatment response and long-term outcomes. AI will also support endoscopy in raising the standard of clinical trial study design by facilitating patient recruitment and improving the validity of endoscopic readings and endoscopy quality, thus overcoming the subjective variability in scoring. Accordingly, AI will be an ideal adjunct tool for enhancing, complementing, and improving our understanding of ulcerative colitis course. This review explores promising AI applications enabled by endoscopy and histology techniques. We further discuss future directions, envisioning a bright future where AI technology extends the frontiers beyond human limits and boundaries.

This study presents a novel computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) designed for optically diagnosing colorectal polyps using white light imaging (WLI).We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the CADx and its auxiliary role among endoscopists with different levels of expertise.

We collected 2,324 neoplastic and 3,735 nonneoplastic polyp WLI images for model training, and 838 colorectal polyp images from 740 patients for model validation. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the CADx with that of 15 endoscopists under WLI and narrow band imaging (NBI). The auxiliary benefits of CADx for endoscopists of different experience levels and for identifying different types of colorectal polyps was also evaluated.

The CADx demonstrated an optical diagnostic accuracy of 84.49%, showing considerable superiority over all endoscopists, irrespective of whether WLI or NBI was used (P < 0.001). Assistance from the CADx significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy of the endoscopists from 68.84% to 77.49% (P = 0.001), with the most significant impact observed among novice endoscopists. Notably, novices using CADx-assisted WLI outperform junior and expert endoscopists without such assistance.

The CADx demonstrated a crucial role in substantially enhancing the precision of optical diagnosis for colorectal polyps under WLI and showed the greatest auxiliary benefits for novice endoscopists.

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential to improve endoscopic recognition of early stage colorectal carcinoma (CRC). This scoping review aimed to summarize current evidence on this topic, provide an overview of the methodologies currently used, and guide future research. Methods A systematic search was performed following the PRISMA-Scr guideline. PubMed (including Medline), Scopus, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library were searched up to January 2024. Studies were eligible for inclusion when using AI for distinguishing CRC from colorectal polyps on endoscopic imaging, using histopathology as gold standard, reporting sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy as outcomes. Results Of 5024 screened articles, 26 were included. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) system classification categories ranged from two categories, such as lesions suitable or unsuitable for endoscopic resection, to five categories, such as hyperplastic polyp, sessile serrated lesion, adenoma, cancer, and other. The number of images used in testing databases varied from 69 to 84,585. Diagnostic performances were divergent, with sensitivities varying from 55.0% to 99.2%, specificities from 67.5% to 100% and accuracies from 74.4% to 94.4%. Conclusions This review highlights that using AI to improve endoscopic recognition of early stage CRC is an upcoming research field. We introduced a suggestions list of essential subjects to report in research regarding the development of endoscopy CADx systems, aiming to facilitate more complete reporting and better comparability between studies. There is a knowledge gap regarding real-time CADx system performance during multicenter external validation. Future research should focus on development of CADx systems that can differentiate CRC from premalignant lesions, while providing an indication of invasion depth.

Characterization of visible abnormalities in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) can be challenging, especially for inexperienced endoscopists. This results in suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and poor interobserver agreement. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems may assist endoscopists. We aimed to develop, validate, and benchmark a CADx system for BE neoplasia.

The CADx system received pretraining with ImageNet and then consecutive domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet, which includes 5 million endoscopic images. It was subsequently trained and internally validated using 1758 narrow-band imaging (NBI) images of early BE neoplasia (352 patients) and 1838 NBI images of nondysplastic BE (173 patients) from 8 international centers. CADx was tested prospectively on corresponding image and video test sets with 30 cases (20 patients) of BE neoplasia and 60 cases (31 patients) of nondysplastic BE. The test set was benchmarked by 44 general endoscopists in 2 phases (phase 1, no CADx assistance; phase 2, with CADx assistance). Ten international BE experts provided additional benchmark performance.

Stand-alone sensitivity and specificity of the CADx system were 100% and 98% for images and 93% and 96% for videos, respectively. CADx outperformed general endoscopists without CADx assistance in terms of sensitivity (P = .04). Sensitivity and specificity of general endoscopists increased from 84% to 96% and 90% to 98% with CAD assistance (P < .001). CADx assistance increased endoscopists' confidence in characterization (P < .001). CADx performance was similar to that of the BE experts.

CADx assistance significantly increased characterization performance of BE neoplasia by general endoscopists to the level of expert endoscopists. The use of this CADx system may thereby improve daily Barrett surveillance.

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2023 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the GIE Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy compiled a list of the top 10 most significant topic areas in general and advanced GI endoscopy during the year. Each GIE Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate topics-significance, novelty, and impact on global clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting and a meeting of the entire GIE Editorial Board. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: GI bleeding, endohepatology, endoscopic palliation, artificial intelligence and polyp detection, artificial intelligence beyond the colon, better polypectomy and EMR, how to make endoscopy units greener, high-quality upper endoscopy, endoscopic tissue apposition and closure devices, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Each board member was assigned a topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this overview of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2023.

The resect-and-discard strategy for colorectal polyps based on accurate optical diagnosis remains challenges. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of hyperspectral imaging (HSI) for identifying colorectal polyp properties and diagnosis of colorectal cancer in fresh tissues during colonoscopy.

144,900 two dimensional images generated from 161 hyperspectral images of colorectal polyp tissues were prospectively obtained from patients undergoing colonoscopy. A residual neural network model was trained with transfer learning to automatically differentiate colorectal polyps, validated by histopathologic diagnosis. The diagnostic performances of the HSI-AI model and endoscopists were calculated respectively, and the auxiliary efficiency of the model was evaluated after a 2-week interval.

Quantitative HSI revealed histological differences in colorectal polyps. The HSI-AI model showed considerable efficacy in differentiating nonneoplastic polyps, non-advanced adenomas, and advanced neoplasia in vitro, with sensitivities of 96.0%, 94.0%, and 99.0% and specificities of 99.0%, 99.0%, and 96.5%, respectively. With the assistance of the model, the median negative predictive value of neoplastic polyps increased from 50.0% to 88.2% (p = 0.013) in novices.

This study demonstrated the feasibility of using HSI as a diagnostic tool to differentiate neoplastic colorectal polyps in vitro and the potential of AI-assisted diagnosis synchronized with colonoscopy. The tool may improve the diagnostic performance of novices and facilitate the application of resect-and-discard strategy to decrease the cost.

Real-time prediction of histologic features of small colorectal polyps may prevent resection and/or pathologic evaluation and therefore decrease colonoscopy costs. Previous studies showed that computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) was highly accurate, though it did not outperform expert endoscopists.

To assess the diagnostic performance of histologic predictions by general endoscopists before and after assistance from CADx in a real-life setting.

Prospective, multicenter, single-group study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04437615).

6 centers across the United States.

1252 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy and 49 general endoscopists with variable experience in real-time prediction of polyp histologic features.

Real-time use of CADx during routine colonoscopy.

The primary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of CADx-unassisted and CADx-assisted histologic predictions for adenomas measuring 5 mm or less. For clinical purposes, additional estimates according to location and confidence level were provided.

The CADx device made a diagnosis for 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less (96%) in 1252 patients. There was no difference in sensitivity between the unassisted and assisted groups (90.7% vs. 90.8%; P = 0.52). Specificity was higher in the CADx-assisted group (59.5% vs. 64.7%; P < 0.001). Among all 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 88.2% and 86.1% (P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be resected and discarded without pathologic evaluation. Among 743 rectosigmoid polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 49.5% and 47.9% (P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be left in situ without resection.

Decision making based on CADx might differ outside a clinical trial.

CADx assistance did not result in increased sensitivity of optical diagnosis. Despite a slight increase, the specificity of CADx-assisted diagnosis remained suboptimal.

Olympus America Corporation served as the clinical study sponsor.

Establishing appropriate trust and maintaining a balanced reliance on digital resources are vital for accurate optical diagnoses and effective integration of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in colonoscopy. Active learning using diverse polyp image datasets can help in developing precise CADx systems. Enhancing doctors' digital literacy and interpreting their results is crucial. Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) addresses opacity, and textual descriptions, along with AI-generated content, deepen the interpretability of AI-based findings by doctors. AI conveying uncertainties and decision confidence aids doctors' acceptance of results. Optimal AI-doctor collaboration requires improving algorithm performance, transparency, addressing uncertainties, and enhancing doctors' optical diagnostic skills.

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.

Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) allows prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy, which may reduce unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. However, the potential benefits and harms of CADx are still unclear.

To quantify the benefit and harm of using CADx in colonoscopy for the optical diagnosis of small (≤5-mm) rectosigmoid polyps.

Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for articles published before 22 December 2023.

Histologically verified diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated the real-time performance of physicians in predicting neoplastic change of small rectosigmoid polyps without or with CADx assistance during colonoscopy.

The clinical benefit and harm were estimated on the basis of accuracy values of the endoscopist before and after CADx assistance. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The outcome measure for benefit was the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal with the use of CADx. The outcome measure for harm was the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be not resected and left in situ due to an incorrect diagnosis with the use of CADx. Histology served as the reference standard for both outcomes.

Ten studies, including 3620 patients with 4103 small rectosigmoid polyps, were analyzed. The studies that assessed the performance of CADx alone (9 studies; 3237 polyps) showed a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% CI, 79.2% to 92.5%) and specificity of 88.9% (CI, 81.7% to 93.5%) in predicting neoplastic change. In the studies that compared histology prediction performance before versus after CADx assistance (4 studies; 2503 polyps), there was no difference in the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal (55.4% vs. 58.4%; risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; moderate-certainty evidence) or in the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be erroneously left in situ (8.2% vs. 7.5%; RR, 0.95 [CI, 0.69 to 1.33]; moderate-certainty evidence).

The application of optical diagnosis was only simulated, potentially altering the decision-making process of the operator.

Computer-aided diagnosis provided no incremental benefit or harm in the management of small rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy.

European Commission. (PROSPERO: CRD42023402197).

Precision endoscopy in the management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer has emerged as the standard of care. It includes optical characterization of polyps and estimation of submucosal invasion depth of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps to select the appropriate endoscopic resection modality. Over time, several imaging modalities have been implemented in endoscopic practice to improve optical performance. Among these, image-enhanced endoscopy systems and magnification endoscopy represent now well-established tools. New advanced technologies, such as endocytoscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy, have recently shown promising results in predicting the histology of colorectal polyps. In recent years, artificial intelligence has continued to enhance endoscopic performance in the characterization of colorectal polyps, overcoming the limitations of other imaging modes. In this review we retrace the path of precision endoscopy, analyzing the yield of various endoscopic imaging techniques in personalizing management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based optical diagnosis systems (CADx) have been developed to allow pathology prediction of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies. However, CADx systems have not yet been validated for autonomous performance. Therefore, we conducted a trial comparing autonomous AI to AI-assisted human (AI-H) optical diagnosis.

We performed a randomized noninferiority trial of patients undergoing elective colonoscopies at 1 academic institution. Patients were randomized into (1) autonomous AI-based CADx optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps without human input or (2) diagnosis by endoscopists who performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps after seeing the real-time CADx diagnosis. The primary outcome was accuracy in optical diagnosis in both arms using pathology as the gold standard. Secondary outcomes included agreement with pathology for surveillance intervals.

A total of 467 patients were randomized (238 patients/158 polyps in the autonomous AI group and 229 patients/179 polyps in the AI-H group). Accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 72.1% (95% CI, 65.5-78.6) in the AI-H group (P = .86). For high-confidence diagnoses, accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 75.5% (95% CI, 67.9-82.0) in the AI-H group. Autonomous AI had statistically significantly higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals compared to AI-H (91.5% [95% CI, 86.9-96.1] vs 82.1% [95% CI, 76.5-87.7]; P = .016).

Autonomous AI-based optical diagnosis exhibits noninferior accuracy to endoscopist-based diagnosis. Both autonomous AI and AI-H exhibited relatively low accuracy for optical diagnosis; however, autonomous AI achieved higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT05236790).

Background and study aims Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could make the optical diagnosis (OD) of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) more reliable and objective. This study was aimed at prospectively evaluating feasibility and diagnostic performance of AI-standalone and AI-assisted OD of DCPs in a real-life setting by using a white light-based system (GI Genius, Medtronic Co, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). Patients and methods Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with at least one DCP were evaluated by 11 endoscopists (5 experts and 6 non-experts in OD). DCPs were classified in real time by AI (AI-standalone OD) and by the endoscopist with the assistance of AI (AI-assisted OD), with histopathology as the reference standard. Results Of the 480 DCPs, AI provided the outcome "adenoma" or "non-adenoma" in 81.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.5-84.6). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy of AI-standalone OD were 97.0% (95% CI 94.0-98.6), 38.1% (95% CI 28.9-48.1), 80.1% (95% CI 75.2-84.2), 83.3% (95% CI 69.2-92.0), and 80.5% (95% CI 68.7-82.8%), respectively. Compared with AI-standalone, the specificity of AI-assisted OD was significantly higher (58.9%, 95% CI 49.7-67.5) and a trend toward an increase was observed for other diagnostic performance measures. Overall accuracy and negative predictive value of AI-assisted OD for experts and non-experts were 85.8% (95% CI 80.0-90.4) vs. 80.1% (95% CI 73.6-85.6) and 89.1% (95% CI 75.6-95.9) vs. 80.0% (95% CI 63.9-90.4), respectively. Conclusions Standalone AI is able to provide an OD of adenoma/non-adenoma in more than 80% of DCPs, with a high sensitivity but low specificity. The human-machine interaction improved diagnostic performance, especially when experts were involved.

With incessant advances in information technology and its implications in all domains of our lives, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a requirement for improved machine performance. This brings forth the query of how this can benefit endoscopists and improve both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in each part of the gastrointestinal tract. Additionally, it also raises the question of the recent benefits and clinical usefulness of this new technology in daily endoscopic practice. There are two main categories of AI systems: computer-assisted detection (CADe) for lesion detection and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) for optical biopsy and lesion characterization. Quality assurance is the next step in the complete monitoring of high-quality colonoscopies. In all cases, computer-aided endoscopy is used, as the overall results rely on the physician. Video capsule endoscopy is a unique example in which a computer operates a device, stores multiple images, and performs an accurate diagnosis. While there are many expectations, we need to standardize and assess various software packages. It is important for healthcare providers to support this new development and make its use an obligation in daily clinical practice. In summary, AI represents a breakthrough in digestive endoscopy. Screening for gastric and colonic cancer detection should be improved, particularly outside expert centers. Prospective and multicenter trials are mandatory before introducing new software into clinical practice.