Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38419859›Full record

ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602024

Comparison of Endoscopic and Artificial Intelligence Diagnoses for Predicting the Histological Healing of Ulcerative Colitis in a Real-World Clinical Setting.

Teppei Omori, Tomoko Yamamoto, Shun Murasugi, Miki Koroku, Maria Yonezawa, Kouichi Nonaka, Yoji Nagashima, Shinichi Nakamura, Katsutoshi Tokushige

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. New Technologies for IBD Endoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Teppei OmoriInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9959-5168
Tomoko YamamotoDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shun MurasugiInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Miki KorokuInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Maria YonezawaInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kouichi NonakaDepartment of Digestive Endoscopy, Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoji NagashimaDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shinichi NakamuraInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsutoshi TokushigeInstitute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy systems with contact microscopy capabilities have been reported previously; however, no studies regarding the clinical use of a commercially available system in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) have been reported. In this study, the diagnostic performance of an AI-assisted ultra-magnifying colonoscopy system for histological healing was compared with that of conventional light non-magnifying endoscopic evaluation in patients with UC. Methods: The data of 52 patients with UC were retrospectively analyzed. The Mayo endoscopic score (MES) was determined by 3 endoscopists. Using the AI system, healing of the same spot assessed via MES was defined as a predicted Geboes score (GS) < 3.1. The GS was then determined using pathology specimens from the same site. Results: A total of 191 sites were evaluated, including 159 with a GS < 3.1. The MES diagnosis identified 130 sites as MES0. A total of 120 sites were determined to have healed based on AI. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of MES0 for the diagnosis of GS < 3.1 were 79.2%, 90.6%, 97.7%, 46.8%, and 81.2%, respectively. The AI system performed similarly to MES for the diagnosis of GS < 3.1: sensitivity, 74.2%; specificity: 93.8%; PPV: 98.3%; NPV: 42.3%; and accuracy: 77.5%. The AI system also significantly identified a GS of < 3.1 in the setting of MES1 ( Conclusions: The histological diagnostic yield the MES- and AI-assisted diagnoses was comparable. Healing decisions using AI may avoid the need for histological examinations.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceendocytoscopyMayo endoscopic scoreulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID38419859
PMCPMC10901431

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.