Published online Dec 7, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.121242
Revised: May 18, 2026
Accepted: July 3, 2026
Published online: December 7, 2026
Processing time: 210 Days and 12.6 Hours
Accurate measurement of the lesion size in colonoscopy is important for selecting the guideline-recommended resection methods and surveillance intervals. The commonly applied technique of visual size estimation by endoscopists can be in
To develop, use, and compare artificial intelligence-based methods to improve size estimation.
We used three state-of-the-art monocular depth estimation models. Furthermore, one model was fine-tuned by domain-specific training with 3060 white-light-rendered images and depth maps of a virtual colonoscopy through a three-dimen
The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in the ESD cohort for the three models ranged from 68.3% to 77.0%. The fine-tuned model reached a MAPE of 37.0%. The experts and trainees achieved 27.3% and 37.5%, respectively. In the external cohort, the MAPE of the three models ranged from 37.6% to 102.4%, while the fine-tuned model achieved the best result with 33.9%.
While monocular depth estimation holds potential for automating polyp size prediction, bigger lesions pose an additional challenge and require rigorous domain-specific training using methods such as three-dimensional vir
Core Tip: Accurate measurement of colorectal polyp size is mandatory influencing the choice of resection technique and surveillance intervals. However, conventional visual estimation by endoscopists is prone to significant error rates up to 66%. In this work, we compare three state-of-the art monocular depth estimation artificial intelligence models for automated size measurement. When applied natively to colonoscopy, they show poor accuracy in size prediction. By domain specific training using virtual colonoscopy images we could significantly improve size prediction. The fine-tuned model achieved a mean absolute percentage error of 33.9%-37.0%. This performance was comparable to trainee endoscopists but remained inferior to experts.