ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
See more, detect more: investigating colonic inspection techniques and polyp detection using machine learning.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality despite widespread colonoscopy screening. Colonoscopy effectiveness, which can reduce CRC risk by 90%, depends largely on adenoma detection rate (ADR), a metric strongly influenced by mucosal inspection quality during withdrawal. However, ADR miss rates remain as high as 26% due to incomplete inspection. Although simulation-based training (SBT) improves procedural skills, physical simulators lack objective assessment and feedback on inspection quality. This study aimed to develop an automated machine-learning model (ML) to objectively assess colonoscopy inspection performance and identify feedback to improve ADR.
methodsA Vision Transformer (ViT)-based ML model was developed to automatically recognize three inspection techniques during SBT required for effective inspection: clear lumen view, lateral wall, and obscured (fold) inspection. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. The validated model was applied to videos from experts (n = 5), intermediate (n = 5), and novice residents (n = 7) performing withdrawal on a physical simulator embedded with silicone polyps. The model quantified time spent in each technique and surrounding polyp detection. Polyp detection rate (PDR) was quantified based on number of polyps detected.
resultsThe model achieved high accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Greater inspection time in obscured regions was significantly associated with higher PDR (r = 0.50, p = 0.041). Compared with novices, experts spent more time inspecting with a clear lumen view (p = 0.039) and deeper obscured views (p = 0.017), demonstrated higher PDR, and devoted more time to obscured regions before or after polyp detection.
conclusionThe ViT ML model accurately recognizes key inspection techniques and objectively differentiates inspection performance across expertise levels using time-based metrics and PDR. This enables objective assessment and targeted feedback-such as highlighting uninspected, obscured regions within physical SBT, with the potential to improve inspection performance and ADR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42552483What 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.