ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Calculation and evaluation of the effective withdrawal time of colonoscopy on the basis of internimage.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Between Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time and Adenoma Detection: Evidence of a Continuous Dose-Response Relationship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopic withdrawal time is an important metric for evaluating colonoscopy quality, but it can be substantially affected by therapeutic maneuvers, impaired visualization, and other interruptions unrelated to mucosal inspection. In this study, we developed an artificial intelligence-based approach to estimate effective withdrawal time (EWT), defined as the periods during which the mucosa or lesions are clearly observed, with the aim of providing a more objective description of inspection time.
methodsWe developed an InternImage-based model to classify complete colonoscopy withdrawal videos into four categories: Observation, Operation, Obscure, and Outside. The Observation category was defined as EWT. The annotated data were split at the video level into development and independent test sets to avoid data leakage. To explore the potential clinical relevance of EWT, we compared therapeutic, biopsy, polyp, and non-polyp examinations across multiple analyses.
resultsThe model achieved a classification accuracy of 97.18% (95% CI: 96.66% to 97.39%) on the independent test set. EWT differed between therapeutic and screening-related examinations, whereas the EWT values of the biopsy, polyp, and non-polyp groups were relatively similar despite clear differences in conventional withdrawal time. EWT also varied across hospitals and physician seniority strata, suggesting potential usefulness for cross-context quality assessment.
conclusionsOur model can identify clinically relevant withdrawal phases from complete colonoscopy videos and objectively calculate EWT. These findings support the technical feasibility of EWT as a complementary surrogate metric for colonoscopy quality assessment across different procedural contexts. However, prospective validation with established clinical outcomes, including ADR and APC, is still needed.
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.