ArticlePloS one2016
Computer Aided Diagnosis for Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Advanced Colorectal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy: Real-Time Histology at the Fingertips: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications of Endomicroscopy in Barrett Esophagus, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Colorectal Lesions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Review
- Lung and Colon Cancer Detection Using a Deep AI Model.Cancers · 2024Article
- Emerging molecules, tools, technology, and future of surgical knife in gastroenterology.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Use of artificial intelligence in the management of T1 colorectal cancer: a new tool in the arsenal or is deep learning out of its depth?Clinical endoscopy · 2024Review
- Fractal nature of human gastrointestinal system: Exploring a new era.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
- Deep Neural Network Models for Colon Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2022Review
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Classification of the Confocal Microscopy Images of Colorectal Tumor and Inflammatory Colitis Mucosa Tissue Using Deep Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Advances in optical gastrointestinal endoscopy: a technical review.Molecular oncology · 2021Review
- 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
- Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Review
- Prediction of the histology of colorectal neoplasm in white light colonoscopic images using deep learning algorithms.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis for colonoscopy: where do we stand now?Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- Image computing for fibre-bundle endomicroscopy: A review.Medical image analysis · 2020Review
- Squamous metaplasia within a sigmoid adenoma. A rare feature.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConfocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is becoming a popular method for optical biopsy of digestive mucosa for both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Computer aided diagnosis of CLE images, using image processing and fractal analysis can be used to quantify the histological structures in the CLE generated images. The aim of this study is to develop an automatic diagnosis algorithm of colorectal cancer (CRC), based on fractal analysis and neural network modeling of the CLE-generated colon mucosa images. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a series of 1035 artifact-free endomicroscopy images, obtained during CLE examinations from normal mucosa (356 images) and tumor regions (679 images). The images were processed using a computer aided diagnosis (CAD) medical imaging system in order to obtain an automatic diagnosis. The CAD application includes image reading and processing functions, a module for fractal analysis, grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) computation module, and a feature identification module based on the Marching Squares and linear interpolation methods. A two-layer neural network was trained to automatically interpret the imaging data and diagnose the pathological samples based on the fractal dimension and the characteristic features of the biological tissues.
resultsNormal colon mucosa is characterized by regular polyhedral crypt structures whereas malignant colon mucosa is characterized by irregular and interrupted crypts, which can be diagnosed by CAD. For this purpose, seven geometric parameters were defined for each image: fractal dimension, lacunarity, contrast correlation, energy, homogeneity, and feature number. Of the seven parameters only contrast, homogeneity and feature number were significantly different between normal and cancer samples. Next, a two-layer feed forward neural network was used to train and automatically diagnose the malignant samples, based on the seven parameters tested. The neural network operations were cross-entropy with the results: training: 0.53, validation: 1.17, testing: 1.17, and percent error, resulting: training: 16.14, validation: 17.42, testing: 15.48. The diagnosis accuracy error was 15.5%.
conclusionsComputed aided diagnosis via fractal analysis of glandular structures can complement the traditional histological and minimally invasive imaging methods. A larger dataset from colorectal and other pathologies should be used to further validate the diagnostic power of the method.
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.