ArticleScientific reports2026
In vivo evaluation of a soft optical sensor for bleeding detection in colonoscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is an essential procedure that allows screening for colorectal cancer and other lower bowel diseases. However, the procedure itself poses the risk of inducing bleeding and perforation that could go undetected if it occurs behind the distal tip camera. A soft optical sensor has been developed as an add-on device onto the colonoscope to detect bleeding. Previously, the device was successfully tested on an ex-vivo bovine colon model. Advancing towards clinical trials, here we present results of the in-vivo evaluation of our device.
methodsThe device is evaluated using two Yorkshire pigs across two testing sessions by expert endoscopists. The sensor was assessed in terms of bleeding detection accuracy, navigation time, NASA TLX, safety, and device durability.
resultsThe soft optical blood sensor is able to achieve an accuracy of 92%, precision of 83%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 87%. The average navigation time indicates that there is no significant clinical workflow interruption caused by the device. The average NASA TLX demonstrates that equipping the device does not contribute significantly to the increased workload. Lastly, the sensor remains intact and the colon has no damage observed after testing trials.
conclusionsThe sensor demonstrates its capability to reliably detect bleeding in pre-clinical trials without interrupting the clinical workflow. For the future work, the sensor could be evaluated with a larger cohort of users to progress towards clinical translation.
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.