■结肠胶囊内窥镜检查(CCE)已成为研究下胃肠道的替代方法。在剩下的几个挑战中,不同时间戳下息肉的比较和最终匹配会导致双重报告的可能性,并可能导致假阳性结果和不准确性.随着人工智能整合的迫在眉睫,由于缺乏有关空间方向的信息,双重报告同一息肉的风险强调了建立息肉匹配标准的必要性。
■本兰德/加州大学,洛杉矶(改良的Delphi)流程旨在确定用于在CCE视频中匹配息肉的关键因素或组件。这涉及探索每个因素的属性,以根据国际专家共识创建全面的息肉匹配标准。
■使用调查的系统定性研究。
■一个由11名国际CCE专家组成的小组召集起来评估一项由60份声明组成的调查。参与者匿名在1-9量表(1-3:不合适,4-6:不确定,7-9:适当)。在对第一轮结果进行虚拟小组讨论之后,在最终分析之前,制定并完成了第二轮调查。
■同意对息肉匹配至关重要的因素包括(1)时间戳,(2)息肉定位,(3)息肉血管形态,(4)息肉大小,(5)绿色和黄色相机之间息肉外观的时间间隔,(6)周围组织,(7)息肉形态和(8)息肉表面和轮廓。当满足五个或更多因素时,人们一致认为,比较息肉可能是同一息肉。
■这项研究为CCE中的息肉匹配建立了第一个完整的标准。虽然它可能无法为匹配困难提供明确的解决方案,小而普通的息肉,这些标准是指导和促进息肉匹配过程的框架。
在结肠胶囊视频分析上创建匹配息肉(肠道异常生长)的标准和标准:使用RAND(改良的Delphi过程)过程的国际专家协议背景:医生经常使用结肠胶囊内窥镜检查(CCE),一个有两个摄像头的高科技胶囊,当胶囊通过肠道时,记录和检查小肠和大肠的疾病。大肠最常见的疾病之一是息肉,是肠壁的异常生长。比较和匹配来自胶囊的同一视频中的息肉可能很棘手,因为它们看起来非常相似,导致错误报告同一息肉两次或更多次的可能性。这可能导致错误的结果和不准确。之前文献没有任何CCE中匹配息肉的标准或标准。目的:使用RAND/UCLA(修改后的Delphi)流程,本研究旨在确定CCE视频中用于匹配息肉的关键因素或组件.目标是探索每个因素,并根据国际专家的协议创建完整的息肉匹配标准。方法:由11名国际CCE专家组成的小组共同评估了一项包含60个陈述的调查。他们以1到9的等级对每个陈述进行匿名评级(1-3:不合适,4-6:不确定,和7-9:适当)。在几乎讨论了第一轮结果之后,在最终分析他们的协议之前,创建并完成了具有相同但经过修订的问题的第二轮调查。结果:匹配息肉的主要因素是1)息肉出现的时间,2)它在肠道中的地方,3)它的血管模式,4)尺寸,5)相机之间出现的时间,6)周围组织特征,7)它的形状,和8)表面特征。如果这些因素中的五个或更多匹配,比较的息肉可能是相同的。结论:本研究建立了第一个完整的CCE息肉匹配标准。虽然它可能无法为匹配挑战性和小息肉提供明确的解决方案,这些标准可作为帮助和使息肉匹配过程更容易的指南。
UNASSIGNED: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.
UNASSIGNED: This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic qualitative study using surveys.
UNASSIGNED: A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.
UNASSIGNED: This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.
Creating criteria and standards for matching polyps (abnormal growth in the bowels) on colon capsule video analysis: an international expert agreement using the RAND (modified Delphi process) process Background: Doctors often use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), a high-tech capsule with two cameras, to record and check for diseases in the small and large bowels as the capsule travels through the intestines. One of the most common conditions in the large bowel is polyps, which are abnormal growths in the lining of the bowel. Comparing and matching polyps in the same video from the capsule can be tricky as they look very similar, leading to the possibility of incorrectly reporting the same polyp twice or more. This can lead to wrong results and inaccuracies. The literature did not have any criteria or standards for matching polyps in CCE before. Aim: Using the RAND/UCLA (modified Delphi) process, this study aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. The goal is to explore each factor and create complete criteria for polyp matching based on the agreement from international experts. Method: A group of 11 international CCE experts came together to evaluate a survey with 60 statements. They anonymously rated each statement on a scale from 1 to 9 (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain, and 7-9: appropriate). After discussing the Round 1 results virtually, a Round 2 survey with the same but revised questions was created and completed before the final analysis of their agreement. Results: The main factors for matching polyps are 1) the timing when the polyp was seen, 2) where it is in the bowel, 3) its blood vessel pattern, 4) size, 5) the timing of its appearance between cameras, 6) surrounding tissue features, 7) its shape, and 8) surface features. If five or more of these factors match, the compared polyps are likely the same. Conclusion: This study establishes the first complete criteria for matching polyps in CCE. While it may not provide a definitive solution for matching challenging and small polyps, these criteria serve as a guide to help and make the process of polyp matching easier.