RT Journal Article
T1 Optical diagnosis in still images of colorectal polyps: comparison between expert endoscopists and PolyDeep, a Computer-Aided Diagnosis system
A1 Davila Piñón, Pedro
A1 Nogueira Rodríguez, Alba
A1 Díez Martín, Astrid Irene
A1 Codesido, Laura
A1 Herrero, Jesús
A1 Puga, Manuel
A1 Rivas, Laura
A1 Sánchez, Eloy
A1 Fernández Riverola, Florentino
A1 González Peña, Daniel
A1 Reboiro Jato, Miguel
A1 López Fernández, Hugo
A1 Cubiella, Joaquín
K1 1203.04 Inteligencia Artificial
K1 3205.03 Gastroenterología
AB Background              PolyDeep is a computer-aided detection and classification (CADe/x) system trained to detect and classify polyps. During colonoscopy, CADe/x systems help endoscopists to predict the histology of colonic lesions.                                      Objective              To compare the diagnostic performance of PolyDeep and expert endoscopists for the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps on still images.                                      Methods                              PolyDeep Image Classification (PIC) is an                in vitro                diagnostic test study. The PIC database contains NBI images of 491 colorectal polyps with histological diagnosis. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of PolyDeep and four expert endoscopists for neoplasia (adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, traditional serrated adenoma) and adenoma characterization and compared them with the McNemar test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to assess the overall discriminatory ability, comparing the area under the curve of endoscopists and PolyDeep with the chi- square homogeneity areas test.                                                    Results              The diagnostic performance of the endoscopists and PolyDeep in the characterization of neoplasia is similar in terms of sensitivity (PolyDeep: 89.05%; E1: 91.23%, p=0.5; E2: 96.11%, p<0.001; E3: 86.65%, p=0.3; E4: 91.26% p=0.3) and specificity (PolyDeep: 35.53%; E1: 33.80%, p=0.8; E2: 34.72%, p=1; E3: 39.24%, p=0.8; E4: 46.84%, p=0.2). The overall discriminative ability also showed no statistically significant differences (PolyDeep: 0.623; E1: 0.625, p=0.8; E2: 0.654, p=0.2; E3: 0.629, p=0.9; E4: 0.690, p=0.09). In the optical diagnosis of adenomatous polyps, we found that PolyDeep had a significantly higher sensitivity and a significantly lower specificity. The overall discriminative ability of adenomatous lesions by expert endoscopists is significantly higher than PolyDeep (PolyDeep: 0.582; E1: 0.685, p < 0.001; E2: 0.677, p < 0.0001; E3: 0.658, p < 0.01; E4: 0.694, p < 0.0001).                                      Conclusion              PolyDeep and endoscopists have similar diagnostic performance in the optical diagnosis of neoplastic lesions. However, endoscopists have a better global discriminatory ability than PolyDeep in the optical diagnosis of adenomatous polyps.
PB Frontiers in Oncology
SN 2234943X
YR 2024
FD 2024-05-23
LK http://hdl.handle.net/11093/7149
UL http://hdl.handle.net/11093/7149
LA eng
NO Frontiers in Oncology, 14, - (2024)
NO Instituto de Salud Carlos III | Ref. PI21/01771
DS Investigo
RD 10-dic-2024