Background and study aims: 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.
Patients and methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: M-LLMs performed comparably to endoscopists in distinguishing non-polypoid from polypoid lesions but failed to reliably identify pedunculated morphology.
Keywords: CRC screening; Colorectal cancer; Diagnosis and imaging (inc chromoendoscopy, NBI, iSCAN, FICE, CLE...); Endoscopy Lower GI Tract; Polyps / adenomas / ...; Tissue diagnosis.
The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).