system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: OBJECTIVE, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Capsule Endoscopy, Clinical Competence, Diagnostic Errors, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Intestine, Small, Linear Models, Observer Variation.
user
Is detection of lesions during capsule endoscopy : physician performance disappointing? Context: Limited data guide capsule endoscopists on how to view the many images collected in each capsule. The objective of this study was to compare the detection rates of clinically significant findings in different capsule endoscopy reading modes and speeds. Seventeen capsule endoscopists with experience from 23 to > 1,000 total capsule procedures read 24 clips, 18 of which were abnormal. Clips were read in two different reading modes utilizing two speeds, including SingleView at 15 at frames per second (f.p.s.), SingleView 25 f.p.s., QuadView 20 f.p.s., and QuadView 30 f.p.s. The main outcome measurements were pathology detection rates correlated with reading mode, lesion type, reader experience, and timing order. SingleView 15, QuadView 20, and QuadView 30 had no significant difference in overall detection rate (45, 47, and 43%, respectively). SingleView 25 had a 26% detection rate, which was significantly lower than SingleView 15 (P = 0.04) and QuadView 20 (P = 0.002). The detection rates of angioectasias, ulcers/erosions, masses/polyps, and blood were 69, 38, 46, and 17%, respectively. Reader experience and timing of interpretation did not significantly impact detection rate.
assistant
Pathology was present on a few frames. Limited modes and speeds were assessed. Lesion types were not confirmed with surgical or deep enteroscopic methods. A relatively small number of readers provided interpretations. Final Decision: yes