ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Automated and quantitative segmentation of colorectal polyps via an information-guided deep learning network with boundary perception.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although remarkable progress has been achieved in deep learning-based approaches for polyp segmentation, accurate delineation remains a significant challenge due to the intrinsic boundary ambiguity and complex morphological variations of polyps. These factors often lead to imprecise localization and incomplete regional segmentation, thereby degrading overall segmentation performance. To address these limitations, we developed an information-guided deep learning network (IGBP-Net), a novel framework driven by guidance linking spatial localization and boundary perception. Methods: In IGBP-Net, boundary extraction is not treated as an isolated task, and an information aggregation module (AGG) is used to establish initial localization. These localization cues explicitly guide a boundary-perception module (BPM) equipped with multiscale strip convolutions, which can effectively capture the fine-grained details specific to the irregular shapes of polyps. To support this core interaction, intermediate and deep representations are contextually refined via global-local and channel multiscale feature extraction. Finally, a region fusion module (RFM) determines the correlation between boundary and region features, iteratively reinforcing highly uncertain areas to produce the final segmentation maps. Results: Extensive comparative experiments on four benchmark datasets [Kvasir, Computer Vision Center Clinic Database (CVC-ClinicDB), Computer Vision Center Colon Database (CVC-ColonDB), and ETIS-Larib Polyp DB (ETIS)] demonstrated the superiority of IGBP-Net over advanced methods, achieving an average improvement in Dice score of 2.05% and in intersection over union of 2.63%. Specifically, it yielded a Dice score of 0.9326±0.0196 on Kvasir and 0.9452±0.0115 on CVC-ClinicDB. These performance gains were confirmed to be statistically significant according to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (all P<0.05; P<0.001 on ETIS), with narrower 95% confidence intervals indicating lower experimental variance and higher stability. Qualitative comparisons further revealed that the proposed model can generate highly accurate segmentation maps for polyps with complex boundaries, closely matching the ground truth. Conclusions: These results validate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed IGBP-Net, which represents a highly competitive solution for overcoming boundary ambiguity in automated polyp segmentation.
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.