ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Development and validation of an automated algorithm to evaluate the abundance of bubbles in small bowel capsule endoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Study of MiroCam MC2000 and PillCam SB3 in Detecting Small Bowel Bleeding: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Crossover Study.Gut and liver · 2025Trial
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Unmet Needs of Artificial Intelligence in Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Objective Evaluation of Small Bowel Visualization Quality in Wireless Capsule Endoscopy Images Using Generative Adversarial Network.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- A multi-label dataset and its evaluation for automated scoring system for cleanliness assessment in video capsule endoscopy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Identification of Circular Patterns in Capsule Endoscopy Bubble Frames.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2024Article
- Evaluation by a Machine Learning System of Two Preparations for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: The BUBS (Burst Unpleasant Bubbles with Simethicone) Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence in small intestinal diseases: Application and prospects.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Scoring systems in clinical small-bowel capsule endoscopy: all you need to know!Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
- CAD-CAP: a 25,000-image database serving the development of artificial intelligence for capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Poor Quality of Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy Images Has a Significant Negative Effect in the Diagnosis of Small Bowel Malignancy.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Multi-criterion, automated, high-performance, rapid tool for assessing mucosal visualization quality of still images in small bowel capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsBubbles can impair visualization of the small bowel (SB) mucosa during capsule endoscopy (CE). We aimed to develop and validate a computed algorithm that would allow evaluation of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwo sets of 200 SB-CE normal still frames were created. Two experienced SB-CE readers analyzed both sets of images twice, in a random order. Each still frame was categorized as presenting with < 10 % or ≥ 10 % of bubbles. Reproducibility (κ), sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), receiver operating characteristic curve, and calculation time were measured for different algorithms (Grey-level of co-occurrence matrix [GLCM], fractal dimension, Hough transform, and speeded-up robust features [SURF]) using the experts' analysis as reference. Algorithms with highest reproducibility, Se and Sp were then selected for a validation step on the second set of frames. Criteria for validation were κ = 1, Se ≥ 90 %, Sp ≥ 85 %, and a calculation time < 1 second.
resultsBoth SURF and GLCM algorithms had high operating points (Se and Sp over 90 %) and a perfect reproducibility (κ = 1). The validation step showed the GLCM detector strategy had the best diagnostic performances, with a Se of 95.79 %, a Sp of 95.19 %, and a calculation time of 0.037 seconds per frame.
conclusionA computed algorithm based on a GLCM detector strategy had high diagnostic performance allowing assessment of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames. This algorithm could be of interest for clinical use (quality reporting) and for research purposes (objective comparison tool of different preparations).
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.