ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Reading of small bowel capsule endoscopy after frame reduction using an artificial intelligence algorithm.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How Does Medical Artificial Intelligence Revolutionize Physician Productivity?Yonsei medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for the Detection of Small Bowel Lesions and Neoplasia: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Review
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Survey on the perceptions of Asian endoscopists to artificial intelligence.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Evolution of inflammatory bowel disease in Korea: a 60-year perspective on clinical and research development.Intestinal research · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic and Ultrasound Imaging for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reducing the workload of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence: A narrative review.Medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in advanced endoscopic imaging: transforming optical diagnosis in gastroenterology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy - a review of current evidence and a critical perspective on future challenges.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPoorly visualized images that appear during small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) can confuse the interpretation of small bowel lesions and increase the physician's workload. Using a validated artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm that can evaluate the mucosal visualization, we aimed to assess whether SBCE reading after the removal of poorly visualized images could affect the diagnosis of SBCE.
methodsA study was conducted to analyze 90 SBCE cases in which a small bowel examination was completed. Two experienced endoscopists alternately performed two types of readings. They used the AI algorithm to remove poorly visualized images for the frame reduction reading (AI user group) and conducted whole frame reading without AI (AI non-user group) for the same patient. A poorly visualized image was defined as an image with < 50% mucosal visualization. The study outcomes were diagnostic concordance and reading time between the two groups. The SBCE diagnosis was classified as Crohn's disease, bleeding, polyp, angiodysplasia, and nonspecific finding.
resultsThe final SBCE diagnoses between the two groups showed statistically significant diagnostic concordance (k = 0.954, p < 0.001). The mean number of lesion images was 3008.5 ± 9964.9 in the AI non-user group and 1401.7 ± 4811.3 in the AI user group. There were no cases in which lesions were completely removed. Compared with the AI non-user group (120.9 min), the reading time was reduced by 35.6% in the AI user group (77.9 min).
conclusionsSBCE reading after reducing poorly visualized frames using the AI algorithm did not have a negative effect on the final diagnosis. SBCE reading method integrated with frame reduction and mucosal visualization evaluation will help improve AI-assisted SBCE interpretation.
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.