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.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced endoscopy and artificial intelligence-enabled vascular healing for ulcerative colitis: promising frontiers or mere mirage?Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- New Technologies for IBD Endoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Inflammatory Bowel Disease Management: Setting New Standards.Cancers · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Paradigm Shift in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Management: Precision Medicine, Artificial Intelligence, and Emerging Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-enabled advanced endoscopic imaging to assess deep healing in inflammatory bowel disease.eGastroenterology · 2024Review
- Advancements in the use of AI in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.