Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37888322›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2023

Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Image Detection of Colonic Polyps vs. Resected Polyps.

Adriel Abraham, Rejath Jose, Jawad Ahmad, Jai Joshi, Thomas Jacob, Aziz-Ur-Rahman Khalid, Hassam Ali, Pratik Patel, Jaspreet Singh, Milan Toma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Adriel AbrahamNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.
Rejath JoseNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0859-1653
Jawad AhmadNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.
Jai JoshiNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.
Thomas JacobNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.
Aziz-Ur-Rahman KhalidNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.
Hassam AliDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
Pratik PatelDepartment of Gastroenterology, Northwell Mather Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY 11777, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1375-8542
Jaspreet SinghDepartment of Gastroenterology, Northwell Mather Hospital, Port Jefferson, NY 11777, USA.
Milan TomaNew York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2154-3728
New York Institute of Technology · USJohn T. Mather Memorial Hospital · USEast Carolina University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Colon polyps are common protrusions in the colon's lumen, with potential risks of developing colorectal cancer. Early detection and intervention of these polyps are vital for reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates. This research aims to evaluate and compare the performance of three machine learning image classification models' performance in detecting and classifying colon polyps. (2) Methods: The performance of three machine learning image classification models, Google Teachable Machine (GTM), Roboflow3 (RF3), and You Only Look Once version 8 (YOLOv8n), in the detection and classification of colon polyps was evaluated using the testing split for each model. The external validity of the test was analyzed using 90 images that were not used to test, train, or validate the model. The study used a dataset of colonoscopy images of normal colon, polyps, and resected polyps. The study assessed the models' ability to correctly classify the images into their respective classes using precision, recall, and F1 score generated from confusion matrix analysis and performance graphs. (3) Results: All three models successfully distinguished between normal colon, polyps, and resected polyps in colonoscopy images. GTM achieved the highest accuracies: 0.99, with consistent precision, recall, and F1 scores of 1.00 for the 'normal' class, 0.97-1.00 for 'polyps', and 0.97-1.00 for 'resected polyps'. While GTM exclusively classified images into these three categories, both YOLOv8n and RF3 were able to detect and specify the location of normal colonic tissue, polyps, and resected polyps, with YOLOv8n and RF3 achieving overall accuracies of 0.84 and 0.87, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Machine learning, particularly models like GTM, shows promising results in ensuring comprehensive detection of polyps during colonoscopies.

Indexed as

cancercolonicimage classificationimage detectionmachine learningpolypsresected

Identifiers

PMID37888322
PMCPMC10607441
OpenAlexW4387450530

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.