ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic virtual ruler (EVR) based on image recognition technology: a novel tool for decision support in endoscopic treatment.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAccurate preoperative assessment of lesion size is crucial for selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique. However, the current assessment of lesion size still mainly relies on visual estimation, lacking objective measurement methods. To develop and validate an Endoscopic Virtual Ruler (EVR) based on image detection technology for objective measurement of lesion size before endoscopic treatment.
methodsUsing computer image recognition technology and laser spot imaging principle, EVR was formed to detect the size of lesions. In vitro animal and human experiments were carried out to verify the accuracy and safety of EVR by comparing its measurement results with the actual size and the visual inspection results of endoscopists.
resultsIn 30 in vitro tests, the measurement error of EVR was 0.08 ± 0.17 cm (95% CI 0.01-0.14), and the relative accuracy of the measurement was 92.80% ± 5.50%( 95% CI 90.75-94.85%). In 58 clinical lesions, the mean error for visual estimation was 0.16 ± 0.66 cm (95% CI- 0.01 to 0.33), while EVR showed 0.12 ± 0.32 cm (95% CI 0.04-0.21). EVR was significantly more accurate (85.68% ± 15.25%) than visual estimation (67.08% ± 22.59%, p < 0.001). EVR was more effective [48 (82.8%) vs 31 (46.6%), p = 0.001]. In the multivariable model, EVR-assisted measurement was independently associated with achieving clinically acceptable accuracy (OR 4.38, 95% CI 1.84-10.43, p = 0.001). EVR also demonstrated higher consistency in lesion size classification (Kappa = 0.764 vs. 0.522, p < 0.001). For lesions < 1 cm, EVR misclassified only 12.5% as 1-2 cm, significantly less than the 50% misclassification rate with visual estimation (p = 0.034). There was no laser damage side effect.
conclusionEVR offers an accurate, safe, and objective measurement tool, which is helpful for the formulation of appropriate treatment decisions. CHINESE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ChiCTR2400085998.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41680532What 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.