Systematic Reviews
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
Table 3 Subgroup analysis of factors affecting adenoma detection rate in artificial intelligence colonoscopy
Ref.Pooled adenoma detection rateADR based on subgroup
Size
Polyp location
Polyp morphology
diminutive lesions (≤ 5 mm)
Small lesions (6–9 mm)
Large lesions (≥ 10 mm), distal
Distal
Proximal cecum
Polypoid
Non polypoid
SSL
Soleymanjahi et al[25]RR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.15–1.28, Heterogeneity: I² = 76%
Makar et al[17] RR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.14-1.27, I² = 64%46% increase in detection (IRR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.19–1.80, P < 0.001, I² = 86.06%)No significant improvement detection. IRR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.94–1.31, P = 0.20, I² = 51.23%No significant improvement detection. IRR: 1.24, 95%CI: 0.94–1.62, P = 0.12, I² = 31.35%No significant improvement detection. RR: 1.10,
P = 0.27
Lee et al[15]RR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.17–1.31, I² = 53%, P < 0.001
Patel et al[26]RR: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.97–1.28, I² = 83%No significant difference. RR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59–1.20, I² = 65%No significant improvement. RR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.84–1.20, I² = 0%
Lou et al[18]RR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.01-1.28, I² = 64%
Barua et al[27]RR: 1.242, 95%CI: 1.159–1.332, I² = 78.87%Largest improvement. RR: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.13–1.42, I² = 62%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.10–1.39, I² = 76%No significant improvement. RR: 1.09, 95%CI: 0.98–1.21, I² = 84%Smaller improvement. RR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.05–1.22, I² = 51%Significant improvement. RR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.13–1.24, I² = 63%
Mehta et al[28]RR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.55-2.00Largest improvement. OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.81–2.36, P < 0.001, I² = 27%No significant improvement. OR: 14.7, 95%CI: 1.19–1.82, P = 0.004, I² = 0%Moderate improvement. OR: 1.79, 95%CI: 1.27–2.53, P < 0.001, I² = 12%Smaller improvement. OR: 1.96, 95%CI: 1.70–2.27, P < 0.001,
I² = 0%		Moderate improvement. OR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.57–2.10, P < 0.001, I² = 22%
Shiha et al[29] OR: 1.52-1.72Largest improvement. Weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95%CI: -0.81 to -0.15, P = 0.004, I² = 0%AI detected fewer pedunculated polyps. OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.49–0.83, P < 0.001,
I² = 0%
Zhang et al[30]OR: 1.58, 95%CI 1.37-1.82, P = 0.003Largest improvement. RR: 1.269, 95%CI: 1.133–1.421, I² = 62.34%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.238, 95%CI: 1.009–1.520, I² = 75.76%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.287, 95%CI: 0.984–1.684, I² = 83.66%Smaller improvement. RR = 1.291, 95%CI: 1.092–1.526, I² = 50.91%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.187, 95%CI: 1.134–1.242, I² = 9.79%Smaller improvement. RR = 1.230, 95%CI: 1.050–1.441, I² = 63.37%Better improvement. RR = 1.419, 95%CI: 1.204–1.671, I² = 57.63%
Nazarian et al[31]No improvement
Adiwinata et al[32] RR 1.24, 95%CI: 1.16-1.33Largest improvement (medium differences = 0.167)No improvement.No improvementSmall improvement. Improvement (medium
differences = 0.105)		Small improvement. (medium differences = 0.091)Slight Improvement but statistically not significant
Vadhwana et al[33]OR: 1.53, 95%CI 1.32–1.77, P < 0.001, I² = 45.5, P = 0.088
Hassan et al[34]RR: 1.43, 95%CI: 1.33-1.53RR: 1.71, 95%CI: 1.45–2.02, P < 0.001, I² = 42%RR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.23–1.71, P < 0.001, I²= 50%RR: 1.73, 95%CI: 1.38–2.17, P < 0.00, I² = 55%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.70, 95%CI: 1.40-2.06, P < 0.001, I² = 50%No significant improvement. RR: 1.28, 95%CI: 0.92–1.78, P = 0.48No significant improvement. RR: 1.13, 95%CI: 0.86-1.48, P = 0.37, I² = 60%Significant improvement. RR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.60 2.50, P < 0.001, I² = 50%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.50–2.04, P < 0.001,
I² = 40%
Lui et al[35]OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.52–2.01
Huang et al[36]OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.36–2.25Sensitivity 95%. I² = 96.86%
Li et al[37]OR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.55-2.00Significantly improved. OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.81–2.36, I² = 27%Improved. OR: 1.47, 95%CI: 1.19–1.82, I² = 0%Significantly improved. OR: 1.79, 95%CI: 1.27–2.53. Heterogeneity. I² = 12%Significantly improved. OR: 1.96, 95%CI: 1.70–2.27, I² = 0%Significantly improved. OR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.57–2.10, I² = 22%
Wang et al[38]OR: 1.77, 95%CI: 1.50–2.08, P < 0.001Significant improvement. OR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.12–1.59, P < 0.001No improvement. OR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.96-1.33, P = 0.79No improvement. OR: 1.43, 95%CI: .0.87-1.78, P = 0.24No improvement. OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 1.88-1.43, P = 0.25No improvement. OR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.76–1.32, P = 0.99
Ashat et al[39]RR: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.27-1.62Significant improvement. RR: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.48–1.84, I² = 63%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.19–1.75, I² = 4%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.46, 95%CI: 1.04–2.06, I² = 0%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.68, 95%CI: 1.50–1.88, I² = 0%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.59, 95%CI: 1.34–1.88, I² = 55%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.54, 95%CI: 1.40–1.68, I² = 0%Moderate improvement. RR: 1.78, 95%CI: 1.47–2.15, I² = 71%No improvement. RR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.14–2.02, I² = 0%,
P = 0.33
Deliwala et al[40]95%CI: 22.2%–37.0%Significant improvement. Mean difference: = +0.15, 95%CI: 0.12–0.18, P < 0.001, I² = 0.02%Minimal improvement. Mean difference: +0.03, 95%CI: 0.01–0.05, P = 0.01, I² = 0.04%No improvement. Mean difference: +0.01. 95%CI: 0.00–0.02, P = 0.76, I² = 0.19%
Hassan et al[41]OR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.52–2.01, I² = 39.2%, P = 0.160Significant improvement. AUC = 0.98, sensitivity = 93.5%, specificity = 90.8%
Wei et al[42]RR: 1.42, 95%CI: 1.33–1.51, P < 0.00001, I² = 9%Significant improvement. RR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.15–1.69, P = 0.0008Moderate improvement. RR: 1.56, 95%CI: 1.12–2.19, P = 0.009Moderate improvement. RR: 1.56, 95%CI: 1.12–2.19, P = 0.009Significant improvement. RR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.18–1.58, P < 0.0001Moderate improvement. RR: 1.75, 95%CI: 1.54–1.98, P = 0.07
Mohan et al[43]RR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.33-1.51, I² = 32.8%
SSL: Sessile serrated lesions; RR: Relative risk; OR: Odd ration; AUC: Area under curve; ADR: Adenoma detection rate.