ArticleScientific reports2025
Artificial intelligence alert system based on intraluminal view for colonoscopy intubation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mucosal contact of the tip of colonoscopy causes red-out views, and more pressure may result in perforation. There is still a lack of quantitative analysis methods for red-out views. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system to assess red-out views during intubation in colonoscopy. Altogether, 479 colonoscopies performed by 34 colonoscopists were analysed using the proposed semi-supervised AI-based system. We compared the AI-based red-out avoiding scores among novice, intermediate, and experienced colonoscopists. The mean AI-based red-out avoiding scores were compared among groups stratified by expert-rated direct observation of procedure or skill (DOPS)-based tip control assessment results. Both the percentage of actual red-out views (p < 0.001) and AI-based red-out avoiding scores (p < 0.001) were significantly different among the novice, intermediate, and experienced groups. Colonoscopists who scored better on the DOPS-based tip control assessment also performed better on the AI-based red-out avoiding skill assessment. AI-based red-out avoiding score was negatively correlated with actual caecal intubation time and actual red-out percentage. Feedback of red-out avoiding score may help remind endoscopists to perform colonoscopy in an effective and safe manner. This system can be used as an auxiliary tool for colonoscopy training.
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.