Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Imaging Studies III: Gastrointestinal Motility Studies and Virtual Colonoscopy01:26

Imaging Studies III: Gastrointestinal Motility Studies and Virtual Colonoscopy

83
This lesson explores three gastrointestinal imaging techniques: radionuclide testing, colonic transit studies, and virtual colonoscopy.
Radionuclide Testing
Radionuclide testing is a sophisticated medical technique for assessing gastrointestinal motility. It focuses on gastric emptying and colonic transit time. Radioactive markers track the movement of food through the digestive system, providing insights into gastrointestinal disorders.
In gastric emptying studies, a meal's liquid and...
83

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Diagnostic Accuracy of Optical Endoscopic Evaluation and EUS for Differentiating T1a and T1b Barrett's Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Digestive diseases and sciences·2026
Same author

Impact of early antiretroviral treatment on tissue resident memory CD4+ T cells in the gastrointestinal tract.

The Journal of infectious diseases·2026
Same author

Massive Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding From Ruptured Gastric Varices: A Rare Presentation of Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis.

ACG case reports journal·2026
Same author

Improvement of Obesity-Related Comorbidities After Bariatric Procedures: A Network Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Versus Surgical Interventions.

Digestive diseases and sciences·2026
Same author

The Efficacy of Dexamethasone Versus N-Acetylcysteine in Prevention of Post-Embolization Syndrome in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: A Multicenter Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Non-Inferiority Trial.

Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology·2026
Same author

Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Use of Small Molecules and IL-23 p19 Inhibitors in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease.

Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples
04:57

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples

Published on: April 25, 2025

398

Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false

Kasenee Tiankanon1, Julalak Karuehardsuwan1, Satimai Aniwan1

  • 1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai red cross, Bangkok.

Clinical Endoscopy
|March 31, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Deep-GI, a new AI model, significantly improves polyp detection sensitivity and reduces miss rates compared to existing CADe systems in colonoscopies. It offers lower false positive rates at key thresholds, enhancing diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords:
Artificial intelligenceColonoscopyComputational intelligenceEndoscopyPolyps

More Related Videos

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
06:28

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

8.3K
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
06:46

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery

Published on: September 27, 2024

261

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples
04:57

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Fecal Analyzer versus Direct Wet Smear Microscopy for Detecting Parasitic Infections in Stool Samples

Published on: April 25, 2025

398
E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
06:28

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

8.3K
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
06:46

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery

Published on: September 27, 2024

261

Area of Science:

  • Gastroenterology
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Medical Imaging

Background:

  • Colon cancer screening relies heavily on colonoscopy for polyp detection.
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) models are emerging to aid endoscopists in identifying polyps.
  • Comparing the performance of novel AI tools against established systems is crucial for clinical adoption.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the polyp detection performance of a new AI model, Deep-GI.
  • To compare Deep-GI against a validated computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) system.
  • To determine optimal false positive (FP) thresholds for both AI models.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective collection of 170 colonoscopy videos.
  • Review by expert endoscopists (gold standard), trainees, CADe, and Deep-GI.
  • Comparison of polyp detection sensitivity (PDS), polyp miss rates (PMR), and false-positive rates (FPR) using varying FP duration thresholds.

Main Results:

  • Deep-GI achieved significantly higher PDS (99.4%) and lower PMR (0.6%) than CADe (85.4% PDS, 14.6% PMR) and trainees.
  • Deep-GI demonstrated lower FPR than CADe at FP thresholds of ≥0.5 seconds (12.1% vs. 22.4%) and ≥1 second (4.4% vs. 6.8%).
  • At a ≥1.5-second threshold, FPR became comparable, but Deep-GI's PMR increased from 2% to 10%.

Conclusions:

  • Deep-GI surpasses CADe in polyp detection sensitivity and reduces false positives at clinically relevant thresholds (≥0.5 and ≥1 second).
  • While FPRs are similar at longer thresholds (≥1.5 seconds), this comes at the cost of increased missed polyps.
  • Deep-GI shows promise as an advanced AI tool for improving colonoscopic polyp detection.