计算机辅助检测(CADe)软件对结肠息肉的比较研究。

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY DEN open Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1002/deo2.70061
Nikolaos Papachrysos, Pia Helén Smedsrud, Kim V. Ånonsen, Tor Jan D. Berstad, Håvard Espeland, Andreas Petlund, Per J. Hedenström, Pål Halvorsen, Jonas Varkey, Hugo L. Hammer, Michael A. Riegler, Thomas de Lange
{"title":"计算机辅助检测(CADe)软件对结肠息肉的比较研究。","authors":"Nikolaos Papachrysos,&nbsp;Pia Helén Smedsrud,&nbsp;Kim V. Ånonsen,&nbsp;Tor Jan D. Berstad,&nbsp;Håvard Espeland,&nbsp;Andreas Petlund,&nbsp;Per J. Hedenström,&nbsp;Pål Halvorsen,&nbsp;Jonas Varkey,&nbsp;Hugo L. Hammer,&nbsp;Michael A. Riegler,&nbsp;Thomas de Lange","doi":"10.1002/deo2.70061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and aims</h3>\n \n <p>Computer-aided detection software (CADe) has shown promising results in real-time polyp detection, but a limited head-to-head comparison of the available CADe systems has been performed. Moreover, such systems have not been compared to endoscopists using standardized videos. This study aims to compare the performance of three CADe systems in detecting polyps, employing a novel standardized methodology.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Videos from 300 colonoscopies conducted at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. Short video clips (20–45 s) presenting normal mucosa or polyps were randomly selected. These videos were then streamed through each CADe system from Medtronic, Olympus, and Augere Medical. Each system featured diverse configurations, resulting in a total of six software settings. Sensitivity and false positivity (FP) were assessed by comparing the CADe systems to both the mean of the systems and pairwise between them. Furthermore, the systems’ performance was compared to the performance of five endoscopists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>CADe systems’ sensitivity ranged between 84.9% and 98.7%, with statistically significant differences observed between the systems, both in comparison to the mean and to each other. FP rates ranged between 1.2% and 5.6%, also differing statistically significantly between the systems. The CADe systems achieving the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP. Statistically significant differences in the alert delay were observed between different CADe systems and endoscopists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study highlights significant differences between commercially available CADe software regarding sensitivity and FP, but a superior performance compared to endoscopists. The software with the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP, highlighting the need for further refinement.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742239/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study benchmarking colon polyp with computer-aided detection (CADe) software\",\"authors\":\"Nikolaos Papachrysos,&nbsp;Pia Helén Smedsrud,&nbsp;Kim V. Ånonsen,&nbsp;Tor Jan D. Berstad,&nbsp;Håvard Espeland,&nbsp;Andreas Petlund,&nbsp;Per J. Hedenström,&nbsp;Pål Halvorsen,&nbsp;Jonas Varkey,&nbsp;Hugo L. Hammer,&nbsp;Michael A. Riegler,&nbsp;Thomas de Lange\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/deo2.70061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>Computer-aided detection software (CADe) has shown promising results in real-time polyp detection, but a limited head-to-head comparison of the available CADe systems has been performed. Moreover, such systems have not been compared to endoscopists using standardized videos. This study aims to compare the performance of three CADe systems in detecting polyps, employing a novel standardized methodology.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Videos from 300 colonoscopies conducted at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. Short video clips (20–45 s) presenting normal mucosa or polyps were randomly selected. These videos were then streamed through each CADe system from Medtronic, Olympus, and Augere Medical. Each system featured diverse configurations, resulting in a total of six software settings. Sensitivity and false positivity (FP) were assessed by comparing the CADe systems to both the mean of the systems and pairwise between them. Furthermore, the systems’ performance was compared to the performance of five endoscopists.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>CADe systems’ sensitivity ranged between 84.9% and 98.7%, with statistically significant differences observed between the systems, both in comparison to the mean and to each other. FP rates ranged between 1.2% and 5.6%, also differing statistically significantly between the systems. The CADe systems achieving the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP. Statistically significant differences in the alert delay were observed between different CADe systems and endoscopists.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study highlights significant differences between commercially available CADe software regarding sensitivity and FP, but a superior performance compared to endoscopists. The software with the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP, highlighting the need for further refinement.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DEN open\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742239/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DEN open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70061\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:计算机辅助检测软件(CADe)在实时息肉检测方面显示出有希望的结果,但是对可用的CADe系统进行了有限的头对头比较。此外,这种系统还没有与使用标准化视频的内窥镜医生进行比较。本研究旨在比较三种CADe系统在检测息肉方面的性能,采用一种新的标准化方法。方法:对奥斯陆大学医院300例结肠镜检查录像进行分析。随机选取正常黏膜或息肉的短视频片段(20-45秒)。然后,这些视频通过美敦力、奥林巴斯和奥吉尔医疗的CADe系统进行流式传输。每个系统都有不同的配置,总共有六个软件设置。灵敏度和假阳性(FP)通过将CADe系统与系统的平均值和它们之间的两两比较来评估。此外,将该系统的性能与五名内窥镜医师的性能进行了比较。结果:CADe系统的敏感性在84.9% ~ 98.7%之间,两种系统之间的差异具有统计学意义,无论是与平均值比较还是彼此之间的差异。计划生育率在1.2%到5.6%之间,在不同的系统之间也有统计学上的显著差异。获得最高灵敏度的CADe系统也表现出最高的FP。在不同的CADe系统和内镜医师之间观察到警报延迟的统计学显著差异。结论:本研究强调了市售CADe软件在敏感性和FP方面的显著差异,但与内窥镜医师相比性能优越。具有最高灵敏度的软件也显示出最高的FP,强调需要进一步改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparative study benchmarking colon polyp with computer-aided detection (CADe) software

Background and aims

Computer-aided detection software (CADe) has shown promising results in real-time polyp detection, but a limited head-to-head comparison of the available CADe systems has been performed. Moreover, such systems have not been compared to endoscopists using standardized videos. This study aims to compare the performance of three CADe systems in detecting polyps, employing a novel standardized methodology.

Methods

Videos from 300 colonoscopies conducted at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. Short video clips (20–45 s) presenting normal mucosa or polyps were randomly selected. These videos were then streamed through each CADe system from Medtronic, Olympus, and Augere Medical. Each system featured diverse configurations, resulting in a total of six software settings. Sensitivity and false positivity (FP) were assessed by comparing the CADe systems to both the mean of the systems and pairwise between them. Furthermore, the systems’ performance was compared to the performance of five endoscopists.

Results

CADe systems’ sensitivity ranged between 84.9% and 98.7%, with statistically significant differences observed between the systems, both in comparison to the mean and to each other. FP rates ranged between 1.2% and 5.6%, also differing statistically significantly between the systems. The CADe systems achieving the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP. Statistically significant differences in the alert delay were observed between different CADe systems and endoscopists.

Conclusions

This study highlights significant differences between commercially available CADe software regarding sensitivity and FP, but a superior performance compared to endoscopists. The software with the highest sensitivity also exhibited the highest FP, highlighting the need for further refinement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Difficult biliary cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for distal malignant biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer: An observational study Endoscopic risk factors to inform early detection of gastric cancer after Helicobacter pylori eradication: Meta-analysis and systematic review Proton pump inhibitor-induced large gastric polyps can regress within 2 months after discontinuation: Experience from two cases Multiple esophageal ulcers in a pediatric case of granulomatosis with polyangiitis: A case report Endoscopic features of gastric neuroendocrine tumors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1