Skip to main content

Table 2 The diagnostic performance for detecting pathological HSIL+ at different hypothetical biopsy thresholds

From: Development and validation of an artificial intelligence system for grading colposcopic impressions and guiding biopsies

  Accuracy, % (95% CI) Sensitivity, % (95% CI) Specificity, % (95% CI) Positive predictive, value % (95% CI) Negative predictive, value % (95% CI)
Analysis of images alone by CAIADS
 Normal/benign versus low-grade or worse 63.6 (62.1–65.1) 87.3 (85.5–88.9) 48.9 (46.8–50.9) 51.6 (49.6–53.6) 86.0 (84.1–87.8)
 Less severe impressionsa versus high-grade or worse 80.7 (79.4–81.9) 65.8 (63.3–68.2) 90.0 (88.7–91.2) 80.4 (78.0–82.6) 80.8 (79.3–82.3)
Analysis of both images and non-image informationb by CAIADS
 Normal/benign versus low-grade or worse 66.7 (65.2–68.2) 90.5 (88.9–91.4) 51.8 (49.8–53.8) 54.0 (52.0–55.9) 89.7 (88.0–91.3)
 Less severe impressionsa versus high-grade or worse 85.5 (84.3–86.6) 71.9 (69.5–74.2) 93.9 (92.9–94.9) 88.1 (86.2–89.9) 84.3 (82.8–85.6)
Analysis of both images and non-image informationb by colposcopists
 Normal/benign versus low-grade or worse 64.1 (62.6–65.6) 83.5 (81.5–85.3) 52.0 (50.0–54.1) 52.1 (50.0–54.1) 83.5 (81.5–85.3)
 Less severe impressionsa versus high-grade or worse 81.6 (80.4–82.8) 60.4 (57.9–62.9) 94.9 (93.9–95.7) 88.0 (85.9–89.9) 79.3 (77.8–80.8)
  1. Abbreviations: CAIADS Colposcopic Artificial Intelligence Auxiliary Diagnostic System
  2. aLess severe impressions included normal/benign and low-grade
  3. bNon-image information included patient’s primary screening findings (cytology, HPV status)