ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2019
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review on computer-aided diagnostic system to classify the disorders of the gastrointestinal tract.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Review
- Deep Neural Network for Differentiation of Brain Tumor Tissue Displayed by Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Barrett's Esophagus and Intestinal Metaplasia.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Artificial intelligence technique in detection of early esophageal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Is Malignant Potential of Barrett's Esophagus Predictable by Endoscopy Findings?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that has an increased risk to turn into esophageal adenocarcinoma. Classification and staging of the different changes (BE in particular) in the esophageal mucosa are challenging since they have a very similar appearance. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is one of the newest endoscopy tools that is commonly used to identify the pathology type of the suspected area of the esophageal mucosa. However, it requires a well-trained physician to classify the image obtained from CLE. An automatic stage classification of esophageal mucosa is presented. The proposed model enhances the internal features of CLE images using an image filter that combines fractional integration with differentiation. Various features are then extracted on a multiscale level, to classify the mucosal tissue into one of its four types: normal squamous (NS), gastric metaplasia (GM), intestinal metaplasia (IM or BE), and neoplasia. These sets of features are used to train two conventional classifiers: support vector machine (SVM) and random forest. The proposed method was evaluated on a dataset of 96 patients with 557 images of different histopathology types. The SVM classifier achieved the best performance with 96.05% accuracy based on a leave-one-patient-out cross-validation. Additionally, the dataset was divided into 60% training and 40% testing; the model achieved an accuracy of 93.72% for the testing data using the SVM. The presented model showed superior performance when compared with four state-of-the-art methods. Accurate classification is essential for the intestinal metaplasia grade, which most likely develops into esophageal cancer. Not only does our method come to the aid of physicians for more accurate diagnosis by acting as a second opinion, but it also acts as a training method for junior physicians who need practice in using CLE. Consequently, this work contributes to an automatic classification that facilitates early intervention and decreases samples of required biopsy.
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.