Background and study aims We evaluated use of artificial intelligence (AI) assisted image classifier in determining the feasibility of curative endoscopic resection of large colonic lesion based on non-magnified endoscopic images Methods AI image classifier was trained by 8,000 endoscopic images of large (≥ 2 cm) colonic lesions. The independent validation set consisted of 567 endoscopic images from 76 colonic lesions. Histology of the resected specimens was used as gold standard. Curative endoscopic resection was defined as histology no more advanced than well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, ≤ 1 mm submucosal invasion and without lymphovascular invasion, whereas non-curative resection was defined as any lesion that could not meet the above requirements. Performance of the trained AI image classifier was compared with that of endoscopists. Results In predicting endoscopic curative resection, AI had an overall accuracy of 85.5 %. Images from narrow band imaging (NBI) had significantly higher accuracy (94.3 % vs 76.0 %; P < 0.00001) and area under the ROC curve (AUROC) (0.934 vs 0.758; P = 0.002) than images from white light imaging (WLI). AI was superior to two junior endoscopists in terms of accuracy (85.5 % vs 61.9 % or 82.0 %, P < 0.05), AUROC (0.837 vs 0.638 or 0.717, P < 0.05) and confidence level (90.1 % vs 83.7 % or 78.3 %, P < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference in accuracy and AUROC between AI and a senior endoscopist. Conclusions The trained AI image classifier based on non-magnified images can accurately predict probability of curative resection of large colonic lesions and is better than junior endoscopists. NBI images have better accuracy than WLI for AI prediction.

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image classification has been shown to have high accuracy on endoscopic diagnosis. We evaluated the potential effects of use of an AI-assisted image classifier on training of junior endoscopists for histological prediction of gastric lesions. Methods An AI image classifier was built on a convolutional neural network with five convolutional layers and three fully connected layers A Resnet backbone was trained by 2,000 non-magnified endoscopic gastric images. The independent validation set consisted of another 1,000 endoscopic images from 100 gastric lesions. The first part of the validation set was reviewed by six junior endoscopists and the prediction of AI was then disclosed to three of them (Group A) while the remaining three (Group B) were not provided this information. All endoscopists reviewed the second part of the validation set independently. Results The overall accuracy of AI was 91.0 % (95 % CI: 89.2–92.7 %) with 97.1 % sensitivity (95 % CI: 95.6–98.7%), 85.9 % specificity (95 % CI: 83.0–88.4 %) and 0.91 area under the ROC (AUROC) (95 % CI: 0.89–0.93). AI was superior to all junior endoscopists in accuracy and AUROC in both validation sets. The performance of Group A endoscopists but not Group B endoscopists improved on the second validation set (accuracy 69.3 % to 74.7 %; P = 0.003). Conclusion The trained AI image classifier can accurately predict presence of neoplastic component of gastric lesions. Feedback from the AI image classifier can also hasten the learning curve of junior endoscopists in predicting histology of gastric lesions.