ArticleJournal of imaging2023
Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Image Detection of Colonic Polyps vs. Resected Polyps.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latest Advancements and Future Directions in Prostate Cancer Surgery: Reducing Invasiveness and Expanding Indications.Cancers · 2025Review
- The Role of ArtificiaI Intelligence in Brain Tumor Diagnosis: An Evaluation of a Machine Learning Model.Cureus · 2024Article
- Transformative Potential of AI in Healthcare: Definitions, Applications, and Navigating the Ethical Landscape and Public Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.