PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 11, 2025Endoscopy International Open3 citationsOpen Access

Large language model for interpreting the Paris classification of colorectal polyps

View Full Paper
DMDavide MassimiLCLuigi CarliniYMYuichi Mori

Key Points

  • M-LLM classified non-polypoid from polypoid lesions with 73% accuracy, similar to experts and non-experts.
  • Accuracy for sessile vs. pedunculated lesions was only 55%, significantly lower than that of experts and non-experts.
  • Comparative analysis involved 100 unique colorectal polyps from the SUN dataset, each labeled with Paris classification.
  • M-LLM performed comparably to endoscopists for certain morphological distinctions but struggled with pedunculated lesions.

Abstract

Abstract Reporting of colorectal polyp morphology using the Paris classification is often inaccurate. Multimodal large language models (M-LLMs) may support morphological assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an M-LLM (GPT-4o) in classifying colorectal polyp morphology compared with expert and non-expert endoscopists. We used the SUN dataset of colonoscopy videos from 100 unique colorectal polyps, each labeled with the validated Paris classification. An M-LLM (GPT-4o) classified five representative frames per lesion. Three expert and three non-expert endoscopists, blinded to one another, performed the same task. The primary outcome was accuracy in differentiating non-polypoid (IIa/IIc) from polypoid (Is/Ip/Isp) lesions. The secondary outcome was accuracy in differentiating sessile (Is) from pedunculated (Ip/Isp) lesions. Given the exploratory design, no multiplicity correction was applied; point estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and P values are interpreted descriptively. M-LLM accuracy for differentiating non-polypoid from polypoid lesions was 73% (95% CI 63%-81%), comparable to experts (75%, 65%-83%; P = 0.84) and non-experts (77%, 68%-85%; P = 0.52), with similar sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy for differentiating sessile from pedunculated lesions was 55% (95% CI 42%-67%), lower than experts (76%; P = 0.02) and non-experts (77%; P = 0.01), primarily due to poor specificity (12% vs. experts 82% and non-experts 88%; P < 0.01 for both comparisons). M-LLMs performed comparably to endoscopists in distinguishing non-polypoid from polypoid lesions but failed to reliably identify pedunculated morphology.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Massimi et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e9b1d0ba7d64b6fc132adbhttps://doi.org/10.1055/a-2703-0209
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations2008 · 23,159 citations
  2. 2Large language models for detecting colorectal polyps in endoscopic images2025 · 10 citations
  3. 3Potential of multimodal large language models for data mining of medical images and free-text reports2024 · 48 citations
  4. 4The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon2003 · 1,772 citations
  5. 5Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy2023 · 202 citations