ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
A complete benchmark for polyp detection, segmentation and classification in colonoscopy images.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Stage-Aware Swin-Enhanced nnU-Net v2 for Robust Polyp Segmentation in Collaborative Endoscopic Visual Sensing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- BAASNet: boundary-aware deep learning for accurate polyp segmentation in colonoscopy.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gastrointestinal polyp detection method based on the improved RT-DETR.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- MAPSeg: self-supervised colorectal polyp segmentation via memory-augmented framework and synthetic polyp simulation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Automated endoscopic image quality assessment for robust colorectal lesion detection.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Polyp-Size: A Precise Endoscopic Dataset for AI-Driven Polyp Sizing.Scientific data · 2025Article
- CRH-YOLO for precise and efficient detection of gastrointestinal polyps.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the main causes of deaths worldwide. Early detection and diagnosis of its precursor lesion, the polyp, is key to reduce its mortality and to improve procedure efficiency. During the last two decades, several computational methods have been proposed to assist clinicians in detection, segmentation and classification tasks but the lack of a common public validation framework makes it difficult to determine which of them is ready to be deployed in the exploration room. Methods: This study presents a complete validation framework and we compare several methodologies for each of the polyp characterization tasks. Results: Results show that the majority of the approaches are able to provide good performance for the detection and segmentation task, but that there is room for improvement regarding polyp classification. Discussion: While studied show promising results in the assistance of polyp detection and segmentation tasks, further research should be done in classification task to obtain reliable results to assist the clinicians during the procedure. The presented framework provides a standarized method for evaluating and comparing different approaches, which could facilitate the identification of clinically prepared assisting methods.
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.