Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
Artif Intell Gastroenterol. Jun 8, 2025; 6(1): 106149
Published online Jun 8, 2025. doi: 10.35712/aig.v6.i1.106149
Published online Jun 8, 2025. doi: 10.35712/aig.v6.i1.106149
Table 2 Result of artificial intelligence colonoscopy on polyp detection and missing rate
Ref. | Adenoma detection with AI | Adenoma detection without AI | Heterogeneity I2 | Adenoma missing rate | False positive |
Soleymanjahi et al[25] | 44.7% (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.15-1.28) | 37% | 76% | AI: 16.1%, Conv: 35.3% (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.36-0.60, I2 = 35%) | |
Makar et al[17] | 20% (RR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.14-1.27) | Lower than AI aid | 64% | 55% reduction (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.37-0.54, I2 = 22.44%) | 39% increase in total (RR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.23-1.57, I2 = 1.81%) |
Lee et al[15] | RR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.17-1.31 | Lower than AI aid | 53% | RR: 0.44 (95%CI: 0.35-0.56, | |
Patel et al[26] | 44% (RR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.97-1.28) | 38% | 83% | ||
Lou et al[18] | RR 1.24, 95%CI: 115-1.33 | 78.87% | 50.5% decrease (RR: 0.495, 95%CI: 0.390–0.627, I2 = 48.76%) | 12.2% increase in total. Range (7.5%–16.9%) | |
Barua et al[27] | 29.6% (RR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.31-1.77) | 19% | 48% | 11.2% increase in total. Range (7.1%-20.1%) | |
Mehta et al[28] | 37.3% (OR: 1.91, 95%CI: 1.32–2.18) | 30% | |||
Shiha et al[29] | 33.7% (RR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.55-2.00) | 23% | 28% | ||
Zhang et al[30] | 33% (OR: 1.52- 1.72) | ||||
Nazarian et al[31] | 34% (OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.32-1.77) | Lower than AI aid | 45% | ||
Adiwinata et al[32] | OR: 1.58 (95%CI: 1.37-1.82) | Lower than AI aid | |||
Vadhwana et al[33] | No improvement | 74% | |||
Hassan et al[34] | 44.0% (RR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.16-1.33) | 36% | 70% | 16% decrease (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.35-0.58, I2 = 49%) | 0.52 increase per colonoscopy, Mean Difference 018 polypectomies (95%CI: 0.11-0.26, I2 = 92%) |
Lui et al[35] | 24.2% (RR: 1.242, 95%CI: 1.159-1.332) | 78% | 50.5% decrease (RR: 0.495, 95%CI: 0.390-0.627, I2 = 48.76%) | 12.20% increase in total | |
Huang et al[36] | 35.4% (RR: 1.43, 95%CI: 1.33-1.53) | 25% | 36% | 10.5% increase in total. Range (7.1%-17.3%) | |
Li et al[37] | OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.52-2.01 | 39% | |||
Wang et al[38] | 10% (AUC 0.79, 95%CI: 0.79-0.82) | 90% | |||
Ashat et al[39] | 33.7% (OR 1.76, 95%CI: 1.55-2.00) | 30% | 28% | ||
Deliwala et al[40] | 77% (OR: 1.77, 95%CI: 1.50-2.08) | 35% | |||
Hassan et al[41] | 36.6% (RR: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.27-1.62) | 25% | 42% | ||
Wei et al[42] | 36.3% (RR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.28) | 36% | 64% | ||
Mohan et al[43] | 32.8% (RR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.33-1.51) | 21% | 56% | 10.3% increase in total (I2 = 93%) |
- Citation: Aleissa MA, Luca M, Singh JP, Chitragari G, Drelichman ER, Mittal VK, Bhullar JS. Current status of artificial intelligence colonoscopy on improving adenoma detection rate based on systematic review of multiple metanalysis. Artif Intell Gastroenterol 2025; 6(1): 106149
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2644-3236/full/v6/i1/106149.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35712/aig.v6.i1.106149