ArticleGut and liver2026
A Scoping Review of Endoscopic Assessment Considering Disease Extent in Ulcerative Colitis: Insights for the Artificial Intelligence Era.
Article in Gut and liver, 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.
- AI-based quantification of inflammatory extent for relapse prediction in ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional endoscopic indices for ulcerative colitis (UC) primarily assess the most severely affected segment, potentially underestimating the cumulative inflammatory burden across the colon. Consequently, there is increasing interest in assessment methods that incorporate both disease severity and spatial extent, including emerging artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches. The aim of this study was to map and critically evaluate current evidence on endoscopic indices that integrate disease extent in UC, including both conventional and AI-assisted approaches. Original studies in which patients with UC were evaluated via endoscopic approaches for disease activity, severity, or extent and clinically relevant outcomes were reported. Non-original articles and studies of other diseases were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published between January 2000 and December 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Findings were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity. Twenty-one studies were included: eight addressed index development or validation, 11 evaluated clinical outcomes, and four investigated AI-assisted assessments, with some studies contributing to multiple categories. Extent-based indices showed stronger correlations with biomarkers and histological activity than conventional focal scores, although their ability to predict relapse was inconsistent. AI-based systems enabled automated assessment of inflammatory distribution, improving reproducibility and showing promising clinical associations, but external validation remains limited. Extent-integrated endoscopic assessment provides a more comprehensive evaluation of disease burden in UC patients and may improve risk stratification and treatment monitoring. However, methodological heterogeneity and limited prospective validation hinder clinical implementation. Further standardization and multicenter studies are 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.