ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Use of artificial intelligence to measure colorectal polyp size without a reference object.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Microscopy in the Endoscopy Suite: A Reference Standard for Colorectal Polyp Size Measurement.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Flexure and Landmark Identification Improves Reporting Completeness in Colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Reply to Koulaouzidis and Marlicz.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Polyp size is crucial for determining colonoscopy surveillance intervals. We present an artificial intelligence (AI) model for colorectal polyp size measurement without a reference object. Methods: The regression model for polyp size estimation was developed using outputs from two SegFormer models, segmentation and depth estimation. Initially built on colonoscopic images of polyp phantoms, the model underwent transfer learning with 1,304 real-world images. Testing was conducted on 178 images from 52 polyps, independent of the training set, using a snare as the ground truth for size comparison with the AI-based model. Polyps were classified into three size groups: ≤ 5 mm, 5-10 mm, and ≥ 10 mm. Error rates were calculated to evaluate discrepancies in actual size values between the AI model and the snare method. Precision indicated the positive predictive value per size group and recall and Bland-Altman were also conducted. Results: The Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of -0.03 mm between methods, with limits of agreement from -1.654 mm to 1.596 mm. AI model error rates for actual size discrepancies were 10.74%, 12.36%, and 9.89% for the ≤ 5 mm, 5-10 mm, and ≥ 10 mm groups, respectively, averaging 11.47%. Precision values were 0.870, 0.911, and 0.857, with overall recall of 0.846. Conclusions: Our study shows that colorectal polyp size measurement by AI model is practical and clinically useful, exhibiting low error rates and high precision. AI shows promise as an accurate tool for measurement without the need for a reference object during screening colonoscopy.
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.