ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Digital Microscopy in the Endoscopy Suite: A Reference Standard for Colorectal Polyp Size Measurement.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Size Matters: Defining a Reference Standard for Colorectal Polyp Sizing.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Establishing reference standards for small and diminutive colorectal polyp size: validation of caliper-based size measurement.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsAccurate determination of colorectal polyp size is critical for surveillance recommendations and for generating reliable ground truth in artificial intelligence (AI) development. Visual estimation is imprecise, and no validated reference standard exists. We aimed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of real-time digital microscopic measurement of fresh polypectomy specimens. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this prospective study at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), 70 polyps from 44 patients (mean age 65.4 years; 52.3% female) were measured on-site using a calibrated digital microscope. Three independent raters, blinded to each other, obtained long- and short-axis measurements. The primary outcome was inter-rater reliability for long-axis measurements. Secondary outcomes included short-axis reliability, overall agreement, and classification (≤ 5 mm vs. > 5 mm).
resultsInter-rater reliability was excellent for both long-axis (ICC 0.941, 95% CI 0.914-0.961) and short-axis (ICC 0.943, 95% CI 0.917-0.962) measurements. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated mean differences near zero without systematic bias. Limits of agreement were within ± 1 mm. When dichotomized at the 5 mm threshold, agreement was perfect (κ = 1.0).
conclusionsOn-site digital microscopy provides highly reproducible and verifiable size data with photographic documentation. This method should be considered a practical reference standard for accurate polyp sizing research and AI model development, meeting regulatory expectations for traceable, auditable training data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41776133What 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.