ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Development and validation of a computed assessment of cleansing score for evaluation of quality of small-bowel visualization in 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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Objective Evaluation of Small Bowel Visualization Quality in Wireless Capsule Endoscopy Images Using Generative Adversarial Network.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- From Data to Insights: How Is AI Revolutionizing Small-Bowel Endoscopy?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- New Generation Express View: An Artificial Intelligence Software Effectively Reduces Capsule Endoscopy Reading Times.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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
- Semantic Segmentation Dataset for AI-Based Quantification of Clean Mucosa in Capsule Endoscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy-Optimizing Capsule Endoscopy in Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Role of Artificial Intelligence in Video Capsule Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Multi-criterion, automated, high-performance, rapid tool for assessing mucosal visualization quality of still images in small bowel capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Development of a computed cleansing score to assess quality of bowel preparation in colon capsule endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsAn objective and reliable scoring system is needed to assess quality of visualization in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE), for both clinical practice and research purposes. The aim of this study was to establish and to validate a SB-computed assessment of cleansing (SB-CAC) score. PATIENTS AND
methodsThirty-three SB-CE were selected. A CAC score, defined as the ratio of the red over green pixels (R/G ratio), was calculated for each frame. Intervals were then determined, ranging from the lowest to the highest ratio among the extracted frames. Twelve frames were randomly selected in each of these intervals. Two hundred eighty-eight frames were shuffled and analyzed twice in random order by two experienced CE readers who were blinded to the CAC scores. Once an "adequately cleansed" or "inadequately cleansed" qualification was allotted to every still frame, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created. In case of discrepancy between the two readers, the still frames were excluded. A second dataset of 288 different SB still frames was generated and read twice in random order by two other experienced SB-CE readers, using the same methodology.
resultsA SB-CAC score threshold of 1.6 best achieved discrimination of adequately from inadequately cleansed frames, with a sensitivity of 92.7 % (95 %CI [89.7 - 95.8]) and a specificity of 92.9 % (95 %CI [89.9 - 95.9]). This threshold was validated using the second dataset, yielding the following performances: sensitivity 91.3 % (95 %CI [87.9 - 94.6]), specificity 94.7 % (95 %CI [92.1 - 97.3]).
conclusionAn SB-CAC score of 1.6 has the highest sensitivity and specificity to discriminate "adequately cleansed" from "inadequately cleansed" SB-CE still frames. This constitutes an objective, reproducible, reliable, and automated cleansing score for SB-CE.
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.