Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23112548›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012

Software for automated classification of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy videos of colorectal polyps.

Barbara André, Tom Vercauteren, Anna M Buchner, Murli Krishna, Nicholas Ayache, Michael B Wallace

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara AndréImage Computing Group, Mauna Kea Technologies, 9 rue d’Enghien, Paris, France. barbara.andre@maunakeatech.com
Tom Vercauteren
Anna M Buchner
Murli Krishna
Nicholas Ayache
Michael B Wallace
Mauna Kea Technologies (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo support probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) diagnosis by designing software for the automated classification of colonic polyps.

methodsIntravenous fluorescein pCLE imaging of colorectal lesions was performed on patients undergoing screening and surveillance colonoscopies, followed by polypectomies. All resected specimens were reviewed by a reference gastrointestinal pathologist blinded to pCLE information. Histopathology was used as the criterion standard for the differentiation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. The pCLE video sequences, recorded for each polyp, were analyzed off-line by 2 expert endoscopists who were blinded to the endoscopic characteristics and histopathology. These pCLE videos, along with their histopathology diagnosis, were used to train the automated classification software which is a content-based image retrieval technique followed by k-nearest neighbor classification. The performance of the off-line diagnosis of pCLE videos established by the 2 expert endoscopists was compared with that of automated pCLE software classification. All evaluations were performed using leave-one-patient-out cross-validation to avoid bias.

resultsColorectal lesions (135) were imaged in 71 patients. Based on histopathology, 93 of these 135 lesions were neoplastic and 42 were non-neoplastic. The study found no statistical significance for the difference between the performance of automated pCLE software classification (accuracy 89.6%, sensitivity 92.5%, specificity 83.3%, using leave-one-patient-out cross-validation) and the performance of the off-line diagnosis of pCLE videos established by the 2 expert endoscopists (accuracy 89.6%, sensitivity 91.4%, specificity 85.7%). There was very low power (< 6%) to detect the observed differences. The 95% confidence intervals for equivalence testing were: -0.073 to 0.073 for accuracy, -0.068 to 0.089 for sensitivity and -0.18 to 0.13 for specificity. The classification software proposed in this study is not a "black box" but an informative tool based on the query by example model that produces, as intermediate results, visually similar annotated videos that are directly interpretable by the endoscopist.

conclusionThe proposed software for automated classification of pCLE videos of colonic polyps achieves high performance, comparable to that of off-line diagnosis of pCLE videos established by expert endoscopists.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedSoftwareAdenomaAgedAged, 80 and overColonColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMicroscopy, ConfocalMiddle AgedColorectal neoplasiaComputer-aided diagnosisContent-based image retrievalNearest neighbor classification softwareProbe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy

Identifiers

PMID23112548
PMCPMC3482642
OpenAlexW2072880652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.