2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comprehensive analysis of classification methods in gastrointestinal endoscopy imaging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar studies have been proposed for anatomical site segmentation in colonoscopy. A longitudinal analysis of the performances of reference CNN approaches 65 on three reference colonoscopy image classification challenges [66][67][68] has recently been performed. The most recent challenges [68][69][70] aim at evaluating image classification methods for distinguishing between anatomical location (z-line, pylorus, cecum, retroflex rectum, retroflex stomach), abnormalities (polyps, ulcerative colitis), polyp removal cases (dyed and lifted polyps, dyed resection margins), and surgical context (normal colon mucosa, moderate stool inclusion, significant stool inclusion, useless blurry image, surgical instrument detected, out of patient).…”
Section: C2 Anatomical Structure Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar studies have been proposed for anatomical site segmentation in colonoscopy. A longitudinal analysis of the performances of reference CNN approaches 65 on three reference colonoscopy image classification challenges [66][67][68] has recently been performed. The most recent challenges [68][69][70] aim at evaluating image classification methods for distinguishing between anatomical location (z-line, pylorus, cecum, retroflex rectum, retroflex stomach), abnormalities (polyps, ulcerative colitis), polyp removal cases (dyed and lifted polyps, dyed resection margins), and surgical context (normal colon mucosa, moderate stool inclusion, significant stool inclusion, useless blurry image, surgical instrument detected, out of patient).…”
Section: C2 Anatomical Structure Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies aim to achieve a general classi˝cation of the di˙erent GI ˝ndings that can appear during endoscopy instead of concentrating on a particular su˙ering or symptom. For a detailed review of papers using AI to classify images of the gastrointestinal tract, refer to Jha et.al [10].…”
Section: Classi˝cation Of Endoscopy Imagesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous studies have stated their concerns about the relevance of the existing DL models in real-world applications. The focal limitations found for these systems are their interpretability scarcity [2,9,16,20] (often referred to as the "black box" condition [11,21,25]) and questionable generalizability [2,20,26,28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They further extended their study to classify and evaluate upper, middle, and lower stomachs using a validation set of 13,048 items, achieving a four-class classification accuracy of 97% and a three-position study accuracy of 99%. As indicated above, while studies exist on the identification of upper gastrointestinal landmarks through wired conventional endoscopy, research on upper gastrointestinal landmarks with WCE images has only recently emerged [ 17 , 18 ]. Further investigations are needed for landmark identification in this specific context.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%