Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36652526›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastroenterology and hepatology2023

Identifying key mechanisms leading to visual recognition errors for missed colorectal polyps using eye-tracking technology.

Omer F Ahmad, Evangelos Mazomenos, Francois Chadebecq, Rawen Kader, Mohamed Hussein, Rehan J Haidry, Juana González-Bueno Puyal, Patrick Brandao, Daniel Toth, Peter Mountney and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Role of artificial intelligence in gastric diseases.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Omer F AhmadWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6498-481X
Evangelos MazomenosWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Francois ChadebecqWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Rawen KaderWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Mohamed HusseinWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Rehan J HaidryDivision of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Juana González-Bueno PuyalWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Patrick BrandaoWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel TothOdin Vision Ltd, London, UK.
Peter MountneyOdin Vision Ltd, London, UK.
Ed SewardGastrointestinal Services, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Roser VegaGastrointestinal Services, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Danail StoyanovWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Laurence B LovatWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBLondon Vision Clinic · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimLack of visual recognition of colorectal polyps may lead to interval cancers. The mechanisms contributing to perceptual variation, particularly for subtle and advanced colorectal neoplasia, have scarcely been investigated. We aimed to evaluate visual recognition errors and provide novel mechanistic insights.

methodsEleven participants (seven trainees and four medical students) evaluated images from the UCL polyp perception dataset, containing 25 polyps, using eye-tracking equipment. Gaze errors were defined as those where the lesion was not observed according to eye-tracking technology. Cognitive errors occurred when lesions were observed but not recognized as polyps by participants. A video study was also performed including 39 subtle polyps, where polyp recognition performance was compared with a convolutional neural network.

resultsCognitive errors occurred more frequently than gaze errors overall (65.6%), with a significantly higher proportion in trainees (P = 0.0264). In the video validation, the convolutional neural network detected significantly more polyps than trainees and medical students, with per-polyp sensitivities of 79.5%, 30.0%, and 15.4%, respectively.

conclusionsCognitive errors were the most common reason for visual recognition errors. The impact of interventions such as artificial intelligence, particularly on different types of perceptual errors, needs further investigation including potential effects on learning curves. To facilitate future research, a publicly accessible visual perception colonoscopy polyp database was created.

Indexed as

Colonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceColonoscopyEye-Tracking TechnologyHumansartificial intelligencecolonic polypscolonoscopycolorectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID36652526
PMCPMC10601973
OpenAlexW4317382984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.