ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Improving Postpolypectomy Surveillance Decisions Using an Automated Analysis of Colonoscopy and Histopathology Reports: 2-Center Validation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postpolypectomy surveillance intervals derived from colonoscopy findings and histopathology should be guideline-based, yet these are frequently not adhered to, contributing to under- and oversurveillance. This motivates a more structured and automated approach to improve adherence. Objective: We developed and evaluated an automated, implementable, guideline-aligned decision support tool that extracts colorectal polyp features from free-text colonoscopy and histopathology reports and produces auditable surveillance recommendations. Methods: We extracted paired colonoscopy and histopathology reports from a National Health Service (NHS) trust and designed a 4-stage prompting pipeline using open-weight large language models to separate multispecimen histopathology reports into individual containers ("pots"), align endoscopic findings with specimens, and normalize each pot into a structured schema. The surveillance intervals were then computed by a deterministic rule engine encoding guideline rules. We evaluated extraction performance on 100 procedures (215 pots), assessed surveillance recommendation performance on a same-site cohort (n=100), and performed external validation on a cohort from a second trust (n=100). A separate retrospective audit compared automated recommendations and observed routine scheduling against a clinician-derived reference based on full electronic health record review in 127 patients. Results: Key extraction fields showed end-to-end accuracy (specimen type=0.995; location=0.981; diagnosis=0.981; excision completeness=0.949), with mean report-level pot comprehensiveness of 0.968 (SD 0.112). Overall surveillance recommendation accuracy was 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-0.98) at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97) at Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust (SWB) and showed strong class-level performance (no follow-up Conclusions: This hybrid approach using open-weight large language models for structured extraction and guideline-encoded rules for decision-making can generate accurate, lightweight, and auditable postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations. Such a tool has the potential to improve safety netting and guideline adherence in NHS colonoscopy workflows.
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.