England's health technology assessor backs AI help in colonoscopy

NICE reviewed 70 studies, most of them randomized trials, and concluded that AI polyp detection systems such as GI Genius improve the adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy.

2
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Found by a court or regulator
Source published
Sources
2 publications
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

NICE reviewed 70 studies, most of them randomized trials, and concluded that AI polyp detection systems such as GI Genius improve the adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy.

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Improved Task Accuracy

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

People.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

AI computer-aided detection (CADe) for colonoscopy: CADDIE, CAD EYE, ENDO-AID, EndoScreener, GI Genius and MAGENTIQ-COLO

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

The software ran during live colonoscopy and highlighted areas of concern for the endoscopist. Endoscopists made the decisions on what to remove.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

Most of the 70 studies were randomized controlled trials that compared colonoscopy with and without the AI software.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

Most of the 70 studies were randomized controlled trials that compared colonoscopy with and without the AI software.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Randomized. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Study design

Randomized. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measurement

Meta-analysis of the adenoma detection rate for each technology by the external assessment group. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Setting and sample

70 studies of AI-assisted live colonoscopy, mostly randomized controlled trials. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measures

Adenoma detection rate. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Comparison

Standard colonoscopy. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Results

Statistically significant improvement for most technologies; not significant for advanced adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Additional value from AI

Higher adenoma detection rate overall. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Limitations

Gains mostly in small non-advanced adenomas; effect on cancer rates uncertain; little data on false positives. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Denominators

Colonoscopies with the software running. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Materials for replication

External assessment group report on the NICE website. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Odin Vision (CADDIE), Fujifilm (CAD EYE), Olympus Medical Systems (ENDO-AID), Wision AI (EndoScreener), Medtronic (GI Genius) and Magentiq Eye (MAGENTIQ-COLO). Operator: Endoscopy services in the trials reviewed by NICE; NHS services in England during the evidence generation period.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: Multiple countries (trials); England, United Kingdom (guidance). Developer: Multiple: United Kingdom, Japan, China, Ireland, Israel. Operator: Multiple.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

The extra detections include clinically significant polyps. Endoscopists keep their own inspection technique while using the software.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

1 follow-up entry. Benefit recurred: 1.

Awaiting review

Later findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0653-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Found by a regulator. Sources: two independent regulatory documents. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

People.

Awaiting review

Depth

People: 2.

Awaiting review

Reasons

People: Pooled trial data showed a statistically significant rise in the adenoma detection rate for most systems.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Found by a regulator

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. A health technology assessment of many trials. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Healthcare.

Awaiting review

Purpose

The systems were built to help endoscopists find polyps during colonoscopy. A higher adenoma detection rate is that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Source published: 19 March 2026. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was in routine use. The trials used the systems in live colonoscopy, and NICE allows NHS use during evidence generation. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 6e42bfa0a273…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Regulatory document Independent author

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to help detect or characterise colorectal polyps. HealthTech guidance HTG773, section 3: Committee discussion. 19 March 2026.

  2. Regulatory document Independent author

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to help detect or characterise colorectal polyps. HealthTech guidance HTG773, section 1: Recommendations. 19 March 2026.

Collections: Scrutiny and findings.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 6e42bfa0a273, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed