Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives
False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting. In a pos...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2020-10, Vol.92 (4), p.900-904.e4 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 904.e4 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 900 |
container_title | Gastrointestinal endoscopy |
container_volume | 92 |
creator | Hassan, Cesare Badalamenti, Matteo Maselli, Roberta Correale, Loredana Iannone, Andrea Radaelli, Franco Rondonotti, Emanuele Ferrara, Elisa Spadaccini, Marco Alkandari, Asma Fugazza, Alessandro Anderloni, Andrea Galtieri, Piera Alessia Pellegatta, Gaia Carrara, Silvia Di Leo, Milena Craviotto, Vincenzo Lamonaca, Laura Lorenzetti, Roberto Andrealli, Alida Antonelli, Giulio Wallace, Michael Sharma, Prateek Rösch, Thomas Repici, Alessandro |
description | False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting.
In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase.
The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher for FPs due to artifacts from the bowel wall than for those from bowel content (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.3 ± 0.2, P < .001).
FPs by CADe are primarily due to artifacts from the bowel wall. Despite a high frequency, FPs result in a negligible 1% increase in the total withdrawal time because most of them are immediately discarded by the endoscopist. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2415289479</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0016510720344461</els_id><sourcerecordid>2415289479</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-875311958d30723731aeabce3140bea7d9907309bf400bc177694baf6ecfd2593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVJabZpf0Avxcdc7M5ItmWlp7I0bSHQS3ONkKVx0OK1HMm7kH9fOZvkmNPA43sP5mPsC0KFgO23XXXvqeLAoYK2Ao7v2AZBybKVUp2xDWSobBDkOfuY0g4AOi7wAzsXvGmxRtiwu23Yz4eFYmm8I1c4WsguPkylScmnJUc2jGEKyYb58aqw45oP3poVKszkikgjHc1kqQhDMZgxUTGH5Bd_pPSJvX9KPj_fC3Z7_fPf9nd58_fXn-2Pm9LWnVrKTjYCUTWdEyC5kAINmd6SwBp6MtIpBVKA6ocaoLcoZavq3gwt2cHxRokLdnnanWN4OFBa9N4nS-NoJgqHpHmNDe9ULVcUT6iNIaVIg56j35v4qBH0qlXvdNaqV60aWp215s7X5_lDvyf32njxmIHvJ4Dyk0dPUSfrKTtxPmaf2gX_xvx_CiGJDA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2415289479</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Hassan, Cesare ; Badalamenti, Matteo ; Maselli, Roberta ; Correale, Loredana ; Iannone, Andrea ; Radaelli, Franco ; Rondonotti, Emanuele ; Ferrara, Elisa ; Spadaccini, Marco ; Alkandari, Asma ; Fugazza, Alessandro ; Anderloni, Andrea ; Galtieri, Piera Alessia ; Pellegatta, Gaia ; Carrara, Silvia ; Di Leo, Milena ; Craviotto, Vincenzo ; Lamonaca, Laura ; Lorenzetti, Roberto ; Andrealli, Alida ; Antonelli, Giulio ; Wallace, Michael ; Sharma, Prateek ; Rösch, Thomas ; Repici, Alessandro</creator><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Cesare ; Badalamenti, Matteo ; Maselli, Roberta ; Correale, Loredana ; Iannone, Andrea ; Radaelli, Franco ; Rondonotti, Emanuele ; Ferrara, Elisa ; Spadaccini, Marco ; Alkandari, Asma ; Fugazza, Alessandro ; Anderloni, Andrea ; Galtieri, Piera Alessia ; Pellegatta, Gaia ; Carrara, Silvia ; Di Leo, Milena ; Craviotto, Vincenzo ; Lamonaca, Laura ; Lorenzetti, Roberto ; Andrealli, Alida ; Antonelli, Giulio ; Wallace, Michael ; Sharma, Prateek ; Rösch, Thomas ; Repici, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><description>False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting.
In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase.
The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher for FPs due to artifacts from the bowel wall than for those from bowel content (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.3 ± 0.2, P < .001).
FPs by CADe are primarily due to artifacts from the bowel wall. Despite a high frequency, FPs result in a negligible 1% increase in the total withdrawal time because most of them are immediately discarded by the endoscopist.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32561410</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Colonoscopy ; Humans</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020-10, Vol.92 (4), p.900-904.e4</ispartof><rights>2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-875311958d30723731aeabce3140bea7d9907309bf400bc177694baf6ecfd2593</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-875311958d30723731aeabce3140bea7d9907309bf400bc177694baf6ecfd2593</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32561410$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Cesare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Badalamenti, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maselli, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Correale, Loredana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iannone, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radaelli, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rondonotti, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrara, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spadaccini, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkandari, Asma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fugazza, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderloni, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galtieri, Piera Alessia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellegatta, Gaia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrara, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Leo, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craviotto, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamonaca, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzetti, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrealli, Alida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antonelli, Giulio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallace, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Prateek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rösch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repici, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><title>Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting.
In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase.
The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher for FPs due to artifacts from the bowel wall than for those from bowel content (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.3 ± 0.2, P < .001).
FPs by CADe are primarily due to artifacts from the bowel wall. Despite a high frequency, FPs result in a negligible 1% increase in the total withdrawal time because most of them are immediately discarded by the endoscopist.</description><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVJabZpf0Avxcdc7M5ItmWlp7I0bSHQS3ONkKVx0OK1HMm7kH9fOZvkmNPA43sP5mPsC0KFgO23XXXvqeLAoYK2Ao7v2AZBybKVUp2xDWSobBDkOfuY0g4AOi7wAzsXvGmxRtiwu23Yz4eFYmm8I1c4WsguPkylScmnJUc2jGEKyYb58aqw45oP3poVKszkikgjHc1kqQhDMZgxUTGH5Bd_pPSJvX9KPj_fC3Z7_fPf9nd58_fXn-2Pm9LWnVrKTjYCUTWdEyC5kAINmd6SwBp6MtIpBVKA6ocaoLcoZavq3gwt2cHxRokLdnnanWN4OFBa9N4nS-NoJgqHpHmNDe9ULVcUT6iNIaVIg56j35v4qBH0qlXvdNaqV60aWp215s7X5_lDvyf32njxmIHvJ4Dyk0dPUSfrKTtxPmaf2gX_xvx_CiGJDA</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Hassan, Cesare</creator><creator>Badalamenti, Matteo</creator><creator>Maselli, Roberta</creator><creator>Correale, Loredana</creator><creator>Iannone, Andrea</creator><creator>Radaelli, Franco</creator><creator>Rondonotti, Emanuele</creator><creator>Ferrara, Elisa</creator><creator>Spadaccini, Marco</creator><creator>Alkandari, Asma</creator><creator>Fugazza, Alessandro</creator><creator>Anderloni, Andrea</creator><creator>Galtieri, Piera Alessia</creator><creator>Pellegatta, Gaia</creator><creator>Carrara, Silvia</creator><creator>Di Leo, Milena</creator><creator>Craviotto, Vincenzo</creator><creator>Lamonaca, Laura</creator><creator>Lorenzetti, Roberto</creator><creator>Andrealli, Alida</creator><creator>Antonelli, Giulio</creator><creator>Wallace, Michael</creator><creator>Sharma, Prateek</creator><creator>Rösch, Thomas</creator><creator>Repici, Alessandro</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives</title><author>Hassan, Cesare ; Badalamenti, Matteo ; Maselli, Roberta ; Correale, Loredana ; Iannone, Andrea ; Radaelli, Franco ; Rondonotti, Emanuele ; Ferrara, Elisa ; Spadaccini, Marco ; Alkandari, Asma ; Fugazza, Alessandro ; Anderloni, Andrea ; Galtieri, Piera Alessia ; Pellegatta, Gaia ; Carrara, Silvia ; Di Leo, Milena ; Craviotto, Vincenzo ; Lamonaca, Laura ; Lorenzetti, Roberto ; Andrealli, Alida ; Antonelli, Giulio ; Wallace, Michael ; Sharma, Prateek ; Rösch, Thomas ; Repici, Alessandro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c489t-875311958d30723731aeabce3140bea7d9907309bf400bc177694baf6ecfd2593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hassan, Cesare</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Badalamenti, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maselli, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Correale, Loredana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iannone, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radaelli, Franco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rondonotti, Emanuele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrara, Elisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spadaccini, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkandari, Asma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fugazza, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderloni, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galtieri, Piera Alessia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellegatta, Gaia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carrara, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Leo, Milena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craviotto, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamonaca, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzetti, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrealli, Alida</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antonelli, Giulio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wallace, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Prateek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rösch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repici, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hassan, Cesare</au><au>Badalamenti, Matteo</au><au>Maselli, Roberta</au><au>Correale, Loredana</au><au>Iannone, Andrea</au><au>Radaelli, Franco</au><au>Rondonotti, Emanuele</au><au>Ferrara, Elisa</au><au>Spadaccini, Marco</au><au>Alkandari, Asma</au><au>Fugazza, Alessandro</au><au>Anderloni, Andrea</au><au>Galtieri, Piera Alessia</au><au>Pellegatta, Gaia</au><au>Carrara, Silvia</au><au>Di Leo, Milena</au><au>Craviotto, Vincenzo</au><au>Lamonaca, Laura</au><au>Lorenzetti, Roberto</au><au>Andrealli, Alida</au><au>Antonelli, Giulio</au><au>Wallace, Michael</au><au>Sharma, Prateek</au><au>Rösch, Thomas</au><au>Repici, Alessandro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>900</spage><epage>904.e4</epage><pages>900-904.e4</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>False positive (FP) results by computer-aided detection (CADe) hamper the efficiency of colonoscopy by extending examination time. Our aim was to develop a classification of the causes and clinical relevance of CADe FPs, and to assess the relative distribution of FPs in a real-life setting.
In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial comparing colonoscopy with and without CADe (NCT: 04079478), we extracted 40 CADe colonoscopy videos. Using a modified Delphi process, 4 expert endoscopists identified the main domains for the reasons and clinical relevance of FPs. Then, 2 expert endoscopists manually examined each FP and classified it according to the proposed domains. The analysis was limited to the withdrawal phase.
The 2 main domains for the causes of CADe FPs were identified as artifacts due to either the mucosal wall or bowel content, and clinical relevance was defined as the time spent on FPs and the FP rate per minute. The mean number of FPs per colonoscopy was 27.3 ± 13.1, of which 24 ± 12 (88%) and 3.2 ± 2.6 (12%) were due to artifacts in the bowel wall and bowel content, respectively. Of the 27.3 FPs per colonoscopy, 1.6 (5.7%) required additional exploration time of 4.8 ± 6.2 seconds per FP (ie, 0.7% of the mean withdrawal time). In detail, 15 (24.2%), 33 (53.2%), and 14 (22.6%) FPs were classified as being of mild, moderate, or severe clinical relevance. The rate of FPs per minute of withdrawal time was 2.4 ± 1.2, and was higher for FPs due to artifacts from the bowel wall than for those from bowel content (2.4 ± 0.6 vs 0.3 ± 0.2, P < .001).
FPs by CADe are primarily due to artifacts from the bowel wall. Despite a high frequency, FPs result in a negligible 1% increase in the total withdrawal time because most of them are immediately discarded by the endoscopist.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>32561410</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0016-5107 |
ispartof | Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2020-10, Vol.92 (4), p.900-904.e4 |
issn | 0016-5107 1097-6779 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2415289479 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Colonoscopy Humans |
title | Computer-aided detection-assisted colonoscopy: classification and relevance of false positives |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T12%3A53%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Computer-aided%20detection-assisted%20colonoscopy:%20classification%20and%20relevance%20of%20false%20positives&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Hassan,%20Cesare&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=900&rft.epage=904.e4&rft.pages=900-904.e4&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2415289479%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2415289479&rft_id=info:pmid/32561410&rft_els_id=S0016510720344461&rfr_iscdi=true |