Trial reportEndoscopy2026
Colorectal mucosal exposure area assessment using artificial intelligence: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Trial report in Endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-time AI-assisted quality control during nasopharyngolaryngoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.NPJ digital medicine · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study proposed a new quality control indicator for colonoscopy, the cumulative colorectal mucosal exposure area (CCMEA), to assess mucosal exposure, constructed a CCMEA system based on deep learning, and validated the indicator in a multicenter prospective observational study. Methods: The CCMEA system was based on ResNet50 and UNet++. A CCMEA threshold was determined on the basis of an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%. A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the system and the threshold in clinical practice. Based on the CCMEA threshold, patients were divided into qualified and unqualified colonoscopy groups. The ADR and other lesion detection rates were then compared between the two groups. Results: 510 participants who underwent colonoscopy were evaluated, being grouped as having qualified (n = 270) or unqualified (n = 240) colonoscopies based on a CCMEA qualification threshold of 2000. The ADR was 39.5 percentage points higher in the qualified group than in the unqualified group (53.7% vs. 14.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.0, 95%CI 5.0–12.8; P < 0.001), and notably was higher for lesions ≤5 mm (42.2% vs. 10.0%; aOR 6.9, 95%CI 4.1–11.5; P < 0.001). The qualified group also had a significantly higher polyp detection rate (89.6% vs. 40.0%; aOR 13.1, 95%CI 7.8–21.8; P < 0.001) and higher mean numbers of both adenomas (1.0 vs. 0.2; adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 5.9, 95%CI 4.3–8.4; P < 0.001) and polyps (5.8 vs. 1.3; aIRR 4.0, 95%CI 3.5–4.5; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The CCMEA qualified group, based on a CCMEA threshold of 2000, showed a higher ADR than the unqualified group, indicating CCMEA could be a promising colonoscopy quality indicator.
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.