ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012
Software for automated classification of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy videos of colorectal polyps.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of endocytoscopy via artificial intelligence in colorectal lesions: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Performance and comparison of artificial intelligence and human experts in the detection and classification of colonic polyps.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Pooled it
- Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2016Pooled it
- Comparing artificial intelligence and healthcare professional performance in surgical and interventional video analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Emerging role of artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence-The Rising Star in the Field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in risk prediction, prognostication, and therapy response assessment in colorectal cancer: current state and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Image enhanced colonoscopy: updates and prospects-a review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Assessment of Colorectal Polyp Histology by Elastic-Scattering Spectroscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Liquid Biopsy and Artificial Intelligence as Tools to Detect Signatures of Colorectal Malignancies: A Modern Approach in Patient's Stratification.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Neoplasm.Gut and liver · 2021Review
- SAGES TAVAC safety and efficacy analysis confocal laser endomicroscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Automated software-assisted diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell neoplasia using high-resolution microendoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Article
- Molecular Imaging of Ulex Europaeus Agglutinin in Colorectal Cancer Using Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (With Video).Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2020Article
- Scope of Artificial Intelligence in Screening and Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.