Mori, Yuichi

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, yet limited data exist on how patients and endoscopists perceive its use. This study aimed to evaluate users' values and preferences regarding AI in endoscopy to support effective implementation and inform guideline development. Methods As part of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) AI committee initiatives, two structured international surveys were conducted—one for patients and one for practicing endoscopists. Thirteen AI‐related statements were presented to patients via an established online platform, while 23 statements were shared with endoscopists through professional networks. Responses were captured using 5‐point Likert scales and analyzed with non‐parametric tests, including subgroup comparisons by age, gender, and endoscopic experience. Results A total of 1237 patients and 476 endoscopists participated. Most patients supported AI in image analysis (75.5%) but emphasized the need for endoscopist oversight (92.3%). Among endoscopists, 90.3% believed AI improves endoscopy quality, and 85.3% believed it benefits outcomes. Concerns were raised about liability (47%), operator dependency (34.8%), and procedure time (49%). Most respondents felt primary responsibility for AI‐related errors should rest with the endoscopist. Younger and male patients reported greater trust in AI. Conclusions Patients and endoscopists are generally supportive of AI in GI endoscopy, especially as an adjunct to human expertise. However, key concerns—including accountability, trust, and clinical integration—must be addressed to ensure responsible and effective adoption.

Abstract The environmental impact of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in colonoscopy is unknown. The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting unnecessary polypectomies may be offset by emissions associated with CADx devices. We quantified and compared the carbon footprint of colonoscopy with and without CADx. Life-cycle carbon emissions associated with endoscopic snares, polyp traps, histopathology, and CADx devices were estimated using life-cycle assessment software. The effect of CADx was estimated by the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions related to outcomes from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent colonoscopy with optical diagnosis under a leave-in-situ strategy (i.e. rectosigmoid polyps ≤5 mm predicted as non-neoplastic were not removed) with and without CADx assistance. We analyzed 1134 individuals (median age 67 years, 59% male) with 1716 colorectal polyps. Colonoscopy with CADx reduced the number of snares and polyp traps from 567 to 543 (difference: 24) and histopathology submissions from 1343 to 1278 (difference: 65). However, the total carbon footprint increased from 832 kg CO2e (95%CI 815 to 847) without CADx to 946 kg CO2e (95%CI 927 to 965) with CADx, corresponding to an absolute increase of 114 kg CO2e (95%CI 80 to 150) or 0.10 kg CO2e per colonoscopy. Using CADx under a leave-in-situ strategy increased the environmental burden of colonoscopy.

The number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for colonoscopy on the market is increasing with supporting clinical evidence. Nevertheless, their implementation is not going smoothly for a variety of reasons, including lack of data on clinical benefits and cost‐effectiveness, lack of trustworthy guidelines, uncertain indications, and cost for implementation. To address this issue and better guide practitioners, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) has provided its perspective about the status of AI in colonoscopy as the position statement. WEO Position Statement: Statement 1.1: Computer‐aided detection (CADe) for colorectal polyps is likely to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by reducing adenoma miss rates and thus increase adenoma detection; Statement 1.2: In the short term, use of CADe is likely to increase health‐care costs by detecting more adenomas; Statement 1.3: In the long term, the increased cost by CADe could be balanced by savings in costs related to cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, palliative care) due to CADe‐related cancer prevention; Statement 1.4: Health‐care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of CADe to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 2.1: Computer‐aided diagnosis (CADx) for diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), when it has sufficient accuracy, is expected to reduce health‐care costs by reducing polypectomies, pathological examinations, or both; Statement 2.2: Health‐care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of CADx to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 3: We recommend that a broad range of high‐quality cost‐effectiveness research should be undertaken to understand whether AI implementation benefits populations and societies in different health‐care systems.

Abstract Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 – 5 mm). Methods A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. Recommendation 1 In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard. Level of agreement 95 %. Recommendation 2 In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard. Level of agreement 100 %. Conclusion The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) research in colonoscopy is progressing rapidly but widespread clinical implementation is not yet a reality. We aimed to identify the top implementation research priorities. Methods An established modified Delphi approach for research priority setting was used. Fifteen international experts, including endoscopists and translational computer scientists/engineers, from nine countries participated in an online survey over 9 months. Questions related to AI implementation in colonoscopy were generated as a long-list in the first round, and then scored in two subsequent rounds to identify the top 10 research questions. Results The top 10 ranked questions were categorized into five themes. Theme 1: clinical trial design/end points (4 questions), related to optimum trial designs for polyp detection and characterization, determining the optimal end points for evaluation of AI, and demonstrating impact on interval cancer rates. Theme 2: technological developments (3 questions), including improving detection of more challenging and advanced lesions, reduction of false-positive rates, and minimizing latency. Theme 3: clinical adoption/integration (1 question), concerning the effective combination of detection and characterization into one workflow. Theme 4: data access/annotation (1 question), concerning more efficient or automated data annotation methods to reduce the burden on human experts. Theme 5: regulatory approval (1 question), related to making regulatory approval processes more efficient. Conclusions This is the first reported international research priority setting exercise for AI in colonoscopy. The study findings should be used as a framework to guide future research with key stakeholders to accelerate the clinical implementation of AI in endoscopy.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. Results Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % – 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % – 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 – 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % – 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % – 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 – 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 – 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 – ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 – 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 – 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. Conclusions AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.