Scholarlink

<p>Colonoscopic withdrawal time is crucial for achieving a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and reducing post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer risk. Enhanced qualified mucosal observation improves ADR, but manual quantification of qualified mucosal observation time (QMOT) in routine is challenging. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) system, QAMaster, for automatic QMOT calculation during colonoscopy withdrawal. QAMaster comprises two models: Model I for image quality analysis (trained with 57,235 images from 64 patients) and Model II for anatomical landmark identification (trained with 7712 images from 3013 patients). Patients were stratified by QMOT, and ADR was compared. The areas under the curve (AUC) of Model I were 0.980–0.991, and Model II were 0.977–0.997. Among 482 patients, ADR was 36.54% (57/156) vs. 19.94% (65/326) in high-QMOT group (≥90 s) vs. low-QMOT group (&lt;90 s) (adjusted OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23–3.33). QAMaster provides a promising tool for assessing colonoscopy withdrawal quality.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An artificial intelligence system for qualified mucosal observation time during colonoscopic withdrawal

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月18日

查看全文
  • Wu-Jun Li,
  • Peng Yan,
  • Muhan Ni,
  • Jin-Dong Zhou,
  • Lin Zhou,
  • Xiang Zhang,
  • Zhenyu Zhang,
  • Ningjing Gao,
  • Zhanwen Ji,
  • Duanming Zhuang,
  • Hao Zhu,
  • Min Chen,
  • Guifang Xu,
  • Xiaoping Zou,
  • Chunyan Peng,
  • Dehua Tang,
  • Lei Wang

摘要

Colonoscopic withdrawal time is crucial for achieving a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and reducing post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer risk. Enhanced qualified mucosal observation improves ADR, but manual quantification of qualified mucosal observation time (QMOT) in routine is challenging. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) system, QAMaster, for automatic QMOT calculation during colonoscopy withdrawal. QAMaster comprises two models: Model I for image quality analysis (trained with 57,235 images from 64 patients) and Model II for anatomical landmark identification (trained with 7712 images from 3013 patients). Patients were stratified by QMOT, and ADR was compared. The areas under the curve (AUC) of Model I were 0.980–0.991, and Model II were 0.977–0.997. Among 482 patients, ADR was 36.54% (57/156) vs. 19.94% (65/326) in high-QMOT group (≥90 s) vs. low-QMOT group (<90 s) (adjusted OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23–3.33). QAMaster provides a promising tool for assessing colonoscopy withdrawal quality.