Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581959›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2022

Comment on "Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology: A state-of-the-art review".

Thomas Bjørsum-Meyer, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Gunnar Baatrup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas Bjørsum-MeyerDepartment of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg 5700, Denmark.
Anastasios KoulaouzidisDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Faculty of Health Science, Odense 5230, Denmark.
Gunnar BaatrupDepartment of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg 5700, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced nearly two decades ago. Initially, it was limited by poor image quality and short battery time, but due to technical improvements, it has become an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Hastened by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, CCE has been introduced in clinical practice to relieve overburdened endoscopy units and move investigations to out-patient clinics. A wider adoption of CCE would be bolstered by positive patient experience, as it offers a diagnostic investigation that is not inferior to other modalities. The shortcomings of CCE include its inability to differentiate adenomatous polyps from hyperplastic polyps. Solving this issue would improve the stratification of patients for polyp removal. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in polyp detection and characterization to minimize incomplete CCEs and avoid needless examinations. Onboard AI appears to be a needed application to enable near-real-time decision-making in order to diminish patient waiting times and avoid superfluous subsequent OCs. With this letter, we discuss the potential and role of AI in CCE as a diagnostic tool for the large bowel.

Indexed as

Capsule EndoscopyColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19GastroenterologyArtificial IntelligenceColonoscopyHumansArtificial intelligenceColonic polypsColon neoplasmEndoscopic surgical proceduresVideo capsule endoscopyWireless capsule endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID35581959
PMCPMC9048781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.