ArticleScientific reports2026
Artificial intelligence classification of rectal neoplasia by endoscopic fluorescence perfusion analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Future of Colorectal Cancer Surgery 1- Development of an Artificial Intelligence Model for the Interpretation of Colorectal Cancer Fluorescence Signalling Using Indocyanine Green
CLASSICA: Validating AI in Classifying Cancer in Real-Time Surgery
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disordered vascularity is a hallmark of carcinogenesis. Fluorescence microperfusion heterogeneity may discriminate malignant transformation within significant (> 20 mm) rectal polyps enabling in-situ endoscopic classification via machine learning (ML) methods to inform clinical care. Patients referred for transanal management of rectal neoplasia were recruited. Indocyanine green was administered intravenously and near-infrared (NIR) endoscopic video recorded. Videos were processed with bespoke fluorescence quantification software producing intensity-timeseries plots for neoplastic and normal regions of interest in the same patients. Plot features were extracted to train/test ML classification algorithms, including coefficient of variation (CV), reporting cancer characterisation sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. 190 video recordings from 182 patients (57.9% with cancer) from six cancer centres provided usable dataset (91% of 201 consenting patients). Overall, the software accurately tracked and detailed NIR perfusion features from, on average (SD), 74.7% (25.3) of annotated regions of interest over the five-minute recording phase. The sensitivity/specificity/accuracy rates of traditional endoscopic biopsy (n = 172), MRI (n = 139) and expert surgeon opinion (n = 190) at surgery were 70.8%/100%/81.7%, 85.4%/ 44.1%/72.7% and 79.1%/80%/79.5% respectively. In comparison, trained ML sensitivity/specificity/ accuracy was 77.6%/39.8%/61.1% and 73.5%/48.2%/62.6% with base and CV featured algorithms respectively. Combining point of care clinical data (specifically MRI and clinicians’ preoperative predictions) with the ML algorithms improved sensitivity/specificity/accuracy to 86.0%/71.1%/79.5% and 82.2%/74.7%/79.0% respectively. Malignant transformation precipitates discriminant perfusion patterns, in a manner exploitable digitally, that indicate cancer presence in significant rectal polyps. Combining clinical indicators appears to improve classification accuracy further, especially specificity.Trial registration: Future of Colorectal Cancer Surgery (FOOCCuS1). Clinicatrials.gov. NCT04220242. Clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04220242. CLASSICA: Validating AI in Classifying Cancer in Real-Time Surgery. Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT05793554. Clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05793554.
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.