Skip to main content
. 2022 Oct 7;28(37):5483–5493. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i37.5483

Table 3.

Characteristics of lesions that were inaccurately identified by the computer-assisted diagnosis system

Characteristics
Accurate identification (n = 186)
Inaccurate identification (n = 23)
P value
Lesion location, n (%) 1.000
Ce 2 (1.1) 0 (0)
Ut 13 (7.0) 2 (8.7)
Mt 152 (81.7) 20 (87.0)
Lt 19 (10.2) 1 (4.3)
Lesion size (cm), median (Q1, Q3) 2.0 (1.1-4.0) 3 (1.5-3.0) 0.476
Paris classification, n (%) 0.038
Type 0-IIb 95 (51.1) 17 (73.9)
Other non-flat types 91 (48.9) 6 (26.1)
Circumference, n (%) 0.591
< 1/4 107 (57.4) 10 (43.5)
1/4-1/2 54 (29.0) 9 (39.1)
1/2-3/4 16 (8.6) 2 (8.7)
> 3/4 9 (4.8) 2 (8.7)
Depth of invasion, n (%) 0.123
EP-LPM 144 (77.4) 21 (91.3)
MM and deeper 42 (22.6) 2 (8.7)

Ce: Cervical esophagus; Ut: Upper thoracic esophagus; Mt: Middle thoracic esophagus; Lt: Lower thoracic esophagus; Q1: Lower quantile; Q3: Upper quantile; EP-LPM: Epithelium or lamina propria; MM: Muscularis mucosa.