ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Is Computer-Assisted Tissue Image Analysis the Future in Minimally Invasive Surgery? A Review on the Current Status of Its Applications.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, and Computer Vision in Hysteroscopy: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Radiomic Assessment of Epicardial Adipose Tissue for the Prediction of Non-Calcified Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaques.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence analysis of minimally invasive surgery data.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Gynaecological Artificial Intelligence Diagnostics (GAID) GAID and Its Performance as a Tool for the Specialist Doctor.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComputer-assisted tissue image analysis (CATIA) enables an optical biopsy of human tissue during minimally invasive surgery and endoscopy. Thus far, it has been implemented in gastrointestinal, endometrial, and dermatologic examinations that use computational analysis and image texture feature systems. We review and evaluate the impact of in vivo optical biopsies performed by tissue image analysis on the surgeon's diagnostic ability and sampling precision and investigate how operation complications could be minimized.
methodsWe performed a literature search in PubMed, IEEE, Xplore, Elsevier, and Google Scholar, which yielded 28 relevant articles. Our literature review summarizes the available data on CATIA of human tissues and explores the possibilities of computer-assisted early disease diagnoses, including cancer.
resultsHysteroscopic image texture analysis of the endometrium successfully distinguished benign from malignant conditions up to 91% of the time. In dermatologic studies, the accuracy of distinguishing nevi melanoma from benign disease fluctuated from 73% to 81%. Skin biopsies of basal cell carcinoma and melanoma exhibited an accuracy of 92.4%, sensitivity of 99.1%, and specificity of 93.3% and distinguished nonmelanoma and normal lesions from benign precancerous lesions with 91.9% and 82.8% accuracy, respectively. Gastrointestinal and endometrial examinations are still at the experimental phase.
conclusionsCATIA is a promising application for distinguishing normal from abnormal tissues during endoscopic procedures and minimally invasive surgeries. However, the efficacy of computer-assisted diagnostics in distinguishing benign from malignant states is still not well documented. Prospective and randomized studies are needed before CATIA is implemented in clinical practice.
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.