Table 2.
Ref.
|
Year
|
Study design
|
System
|
Image modality
|
Number of patients/colonoscopies used for training/test datasets (total)
|
Number of colonoscopy/polyp images/videos used for training/test datasets
|
Diagnostic properties
|
Park and Sargent[81] | 2016 | Retrospective | CADe based on DCNN using a conditional random field model | Still images | 35 (colonoscopy videos) | 562/562 (colonoscopy still images) | Sensitivity = 86%; specificity = 85%; AUC = 0.8585 |
Fernández-Esparrach et al[73] | 2016 | Retrospective | CADe based on energy map | Still images | NA/24 colonoscopy videos containing 31 different polyps | NA/Experiment A: 612 polyp images from all 24 videos. Experiment B: 47886 frames from the 24 videos | Experiment A: accuracy = small vs all polyps = 77.5%, 95%CI = 71.5%–82.6% vs 66.2%, 95%CI = 61.4%–70.7%; P < 0.01. Experiment B: The AUC = high quality frames vs all Frames = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.70–0.87 vs 0.75, 95%CI = 0.66–0.83 |
Yu et al[82] | 2017 | Retrospective | CADe based on three-dimensional (3-D) deep learning integration framework by leveraging the 3-D fully CNN (3D-FCN) | Videos | 20/18 (colonoscopy videos) | 3799 frames with polyps in total | Sensitivity = 71%; PPV = 88%; precision = 88.1% |
Billah et al[83] | 2017 | Retrospective | CADe based on CNN and color wavelet features using a linear support vector machine | Still images | 100 (colonoscopy videos for combined training and test datasets) | 14000 still images (combined for training and test datasets) | Accuracy = 98.65%; sensitivity = 98.79%; specificity = 98.52% |
Zhang et al[84] | 2017 | Retrospective | CADe based on DCNN | Still images | NA | 2262/150 random, 30 NBI (colonoscopy still images) | Accuracy = 85.9%; sensitivity = 98%; PPV = 99%; precision = 87.3%; recall rate = 87.6%; AUC = 1.0 |
Wang et al[85] | 2018 | Retrospective | CADe based on DNN | Still images | 1290/1138 (2428) patients | 27113/5545 (colonoscopy images) | Sensitivity = 94.38%, 95%CI = 93.80%-94.96% in images with polyp; AUC = 0.984 |
Misawa et al[34] | 2018 | Retrospective | CADe based on CNN | Videos | 59/14 (73) | 411/135 (colonoscopy videos containing 150 polyps) | Per-polyp sensitivity = 94%; per-frame sensitivity = 90%; specificity = 63.3%; accuracy = 76.5%; false positive rate = 60%; AUC = 0.87 |
Yamada et al[33] | 2019 | Retrospective | CADe based on DNN | Videos | NA/77 (number of videos) | 13983/4840 (colonoscopy videos) | Sensitivity = 97.3%, 95%CI = 95.9%–98.4%; specificity = 99.0%, 95%CI = 98.6%–99.2%; AUC = 0.975, 95%CI = 0.964–0.986) |
Urban et al[35] | 2018 | Retrospective | CADe based on deep learning CNN | Videos | Several training and validation sets: (1) Cross-validation on the 8641 images; (2) Training on the 8641 images and testing on the 9 videos, 11 videos, and independent dataset; and (3) Training on the 8641 images and 9 videos and testing on the 11 videos and independent dataset | Sensitivity = 96.9%; specificity: 95%; AUC = 0.991; accuracy = 96.4%; false positive rate = 7% | |
Klare et al[37] | 2019 | Prospective | Automated polyp detection software (“KoloPol,” Fraunhofer IIS, Erlangen, Germany) based on CNN | Live colonoscopy videos | NA | NA/55 (colonoscopy videos) | Per-polyp sensitivity = 75.3%, 95%CI = 62.3%-84.9%; PDR = 50.9%, 95%CI = 37.1%-64.4%; ADR = 29.1%, 95%CI = 17.6%-42.9% |
Ozawa et al[86] | 2020 | Retrospective | CADe based on DCNN | Still images | 12895 patients | 16418/7077 | Sensitivity = 92%; PPV = 86%; accuracy = 83%; identified adenomas = 97% |
CADe: Computer-assisted detection system; CNN: Convolutional neural network; DCNN: Deep learning convolutional neural network; AUC: Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; PDR: Polyp detection rate; ADR: Adenoma detection rate; CI: Confidence interval.