ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Computer vision scoring of endoscopically traced line figures in an inanimate scope tip coordination training model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFine control of the moving scope tip with an instrument extended from the scope tip is a critical skill in performing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) and hybrid ESD/Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) polypectomy. An inanimate training model has been utilized for several years where trainees trace line figures (e.g., grid, circle, S-shape, and figure of eight) using a sclerotherapy catheter "pen" within a plastic colon tube containing a paper insert. This exercise requires fine coordination similar to that needed for needle knife use. Traced figures are traditionally scored based on completion time and the number of deviations greater than 2 mm from the intended line. This study assesses the efficacy of a computer vision (CV) algorithm versus manual scoring in evaluating these tracings.
methodsA training session involved 8 tracings (4 figures, traced twice) resulting in 352 tracings manually scored for deviations over 2 mm. A CV model was employed to score the tracings by aligning each output with a reference template using perspective transformation. Color space segmentation isolated the ink, and deviations were highlighted by subtracting the tracing from the template. A pixel-based deviation analysis converted pixel distance to millimeters, classifying deviations greater than 2 mm as large deviations for final analysis. Additional morphological processing ensured accurate detection of significant deviations.
resultsOn average, the CV algorithm detected 1.28 more deviations than manual scoring. Detection rates by figure were as follows: grid pattern (1.23), circle (1.27), figure of eight (1.61), and S-shape (1.02). A Bland-Altman plot demonstrated agreement between the CV algorithm and manual scoring, with most deviations falling within the 96% confidence interval (± 1.96 SD). A noted confounder was the variability in pen stroke thickness, which occasionally resulted in thick lines being misconstrued as deviations. The introduction of orienting marks (circular or diamond-shaped) to each tracing facilitated more accurate evaluations.
conclusionThe CV algorithm effectively assessed the accuracy of tracings in the inanimate model by accurately detecting deviations compared to human scoring. Future developments include a CV application that provides real-time feedback for trainees, potentially integrating AI evaluation into advanced endoscopy educational programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41188412What 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.