Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38828734›Full record

ArticleJournal of Crohn's & colitis2025

Artificial Intelligence-assisted Video Colonoscopy for Disease Monitoring of Ulcerative Colitis: A Prospective Study.

Noriyuki Ogata, Yasuharu Maeda, Masashi Misawa, Kento Takenaka, Kaoru Takabayashi, Marietta Iacucci, Takanori Kuroki, Kazumi Takishima, Keisuke Sasabe, Yu Niimura and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Noriyuki OgataDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yasuharu MaedaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Masashi MisawaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kento TakenakaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kaoru TakabayashiCenter for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Marietta IacucciAPC Microbiome Ireland, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Takanori KurokiDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kazumi TakishimaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Keisuke SasabeDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yu NiimuraDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Jiro KawashimaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yushi OgawaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Katsuro IchimasaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hiroki NakamuraDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Shingo MatsudairaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Seiko SasanumaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Takemasa HayashiDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kunihiko WakamuraDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Hideyuki MiyachiDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Toshiyuki BabaDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yuichi MoriDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kazuo OhtsukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruhiko OgataCenter for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shin-Ei KudoDigestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI JP20K17002/23K09537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUNDS AND

aimsThe Mayo endoscopic subscore [MES] is the most popular endoscopic disease activity measure of ulcerative colitis [UC]. Artificial intelligence [AI]-assisted colonoscopy is expected to reduce diagnostic variability among endoscopists. However, no study has been conducted to ascertain whether AI-based MES assignments can help predict clinical relapse, nor has AI been verified to improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists.

methodsThis open-label, prospective cohort study enrolled 110 patients with UC in clinical remission. The AI algorithm was developed using 74 713 images from 898 patients who underwent colonoscopy at three centres. Patients were followed up after colonoscopy for 12 months, and clinical relapse was defined as a partial Mayo score > 2. A multi-video, multi-reader analysis involving 124 videos was conducted to determine whether the AI system reduced the diagnostic variability among six non-specialists.

resultsThe clinical relapse rate for patients with AI-based MES = 1 (24.5% [12/49]) was significantly higher [log-rank test, p = 0.01] than that for patients with AI-based MES = 0 (3.2% [1/31]). Relapse occurred during the 12-month follow-up period in 16.2% [13/80] of patients with AI-based MES = 0 or 1 and 50.0% [10/20] of those with AI-based MES = 2 or 3 [log-rank test, p = 0.03]. Using AI resulted in better inter- and intra-observer reproducibility than endoscopists alone.

conclusionsColonoscopy using the AI-based MES system can stratify the risk of clinical relapse in patients with UC and improve the diagnostic performance of non-specialists.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceColitis, UlcerativeColonoscopyAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRecurrenceSeverity of Illness IndexVideo Recordingcomputer-aided diagnosisEndoscopic remissionMayo endoscopic subscore

Identifiers

PMID38828734
PMCPMC11725525

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.