Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025
Diagnosis of Neoplasia in Barrett’s Esophagus using Vital-dye Enhanced Fluorescence Imaging
Published on: May 11, 2014
Non-polypoid Colorectal Lesions Detection and False Positive Detection by Artificial Intelligence under Blue Laser
Satoshi Sugino1, Naohisa Yoshida2, Zhe Guo3
1Department of Gastroenterology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu, Japan.
Objectives:
Artificial intelligence (AI) with white light imaging (WLI) is not enough for detecting non-polypoid colorectal polyps and it still has high false positive rate (FPR). We developed AIs using blue laser imaging (BLI) and linked color imaging (LCI) to detect them with specific learning sets (LS).
Methods:
The contents of LS were as follows, LS (WLI): 1991 WLI images of lesion of 2-10 mm, LS (IEE): 5920 WLI, BLI, and LCI images of non-polypoid and small lesions of 2-20 mm. LS (IEE) was extracted from videos and included both in-focus and out-of-focus images. We designed three AIs as follows: AI (WLI) finetuned by LS (WLI), AI (IEE) finetuned by LS (WLI)+LS (IEE), and AI (HQ) finetuned by LS (WLI)+LS (IEE) only with images in focus. Polyp detection using a test set of WLI, BLI, and LCI videos of 100 non-polypoid or non-reddish lesions of 2-20 mm and FPR using movies of 15 total colonoscopy were analyzed, compared to 2 experts and 2 trainees.
Results:
The sensitivity for LCI in AI (IEE) (83%) was compared to that for WLI in AI (IEE) (76%: p=0.02), WLI in AI (WLI) (57%: p<0.01), BLI in AI (IEE) (78%: p=0.14), and LCI in trainees (74%: p<0.01). The sensitivity for LCI in AI (IEE) (83%) was significantly higher than that in AI (HQ) (78%: p<0.01). The FPR for LCI (6.5%) in AI (IEE) were significantly lower than that in AI (HQ) (17.3%: p<0.01).
Conclusions:
AI finetuned by appropriate LS detected non-reddish and non-polypoid polyps under LCI.
