ArticleScientific reports2021
Automatic lumen detection and magnetic alignment control for magnetic-assisted capsule colonoscope system optimization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05213741 (Feasibility Trial of Magnetic-assisted Colonoscope Platform), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Feasibility Trial of Magnetic-assisted Colonoscope Platform
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Autonomy for Magnetic Endoscope Biopsy.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics · 2022Article
- Locomotion and disaggregation control of paramagnetic nanoclusters using wireless electromagnetic fields for enhanced targeted drug delivery.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed a magnetic-assisted capsule colonoscope system with integration of computer vision-based object detection and an alignment control scheme. Two convolutional neural network models A and B for lumen identification were trained on an endoscopic dataset of 9080 images. In the lumen alignment experiment, models C and D used a simulated dataset of 8414 images. The models were evaluated using validation indexes for recall (R), precision (P), mean average precision (mAP), and F1 score. Predictive performance was evaluated with the area under the P-R curve. Adjustments of pitch and yaw angles and alignment control time were analyzed in the alignment experiment. Model D had the best predictive performance. Its R, P, mAP, and F1 score were 0.964, 0.961, 0.961, and 0.963, respectively, when the area of overlap/area of union was at 0.3. In the lumen alignment experiment, the mean degrees of adjustment for yaw and pitch in 160 trials were 21.70° and 13.78°, respectively. Mean alignment control time was 0.902 s. Finally, we compared the cecal intubation time between semi-automated and manual navigation in 20 trials. The average cecal intubation time of manual navigation and semi-automated navigation were 9 min 28.41 s and 7 min 23.61 s, respectively. The automatic lumen detection model, which was trained using a deep learning algorithm, demonstrated high performance in each validation index.
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.