ArticleDigital health
Real-time deep-learning NICE classification and withdrawal-speed monitoring for colorectal endoscopy.
Article in Digital health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and deploy a deep-learning system for automatic NICE classification of colorectal lesions that delivers real-time assistance, incorporates withdrawal-speed monitoring, and shortens the learning curve for endoscopists. Methods: A total of 2605 colonoscopic images from three hospitals were used for training/testing, with an independent external set of 99 images for validation. Three CNN models (EfficientNet, ResNet50, VGG19) and three Transformer models (ViT, Swin, CvT) were fine-tuned via transfer learning and compared. Model decisions were explained by Grad-CAM, Guided Grad-CAM and SHAP. The best model was converted to ONNX for cross-platform deployment (>50 FPS) and combined with a perceptual-hash/Hamming-distance algorithm to visualize and alarm withdrawal speed. Results: EfficientNet achieved the best performance (internal accuracy 0.910, F1 = 0.916). On the external set it reached a macro-average AUC of 0.994 with precision 0.936 and recall 0.918. Compared with endoscopists, the model matched or exceeded sensitivity/specificity for NICE 2 and NICE 3. After ONNX conversion, frame-level inference exceeded 50 FPS, and excessive withdrawal speed triggered yellow/red warnings. Conclusion: This study is the first to integrate high-accuracy EfficientNet-based NICE classification, comprehensive explainability, and real-time withdrawal-speed monitoring into an ONNX-based multi-terminal system. The tool shows strong potential to improve optical diagnosis consistency for early colorectal cancer and to accelerate training of novice endoscopists.
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.