<i>In‐vivo</i> multispectral video endoscopy towards <i>in‐vivo</i> hyperspectral video endoscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For in-vivo diagnostics of cancer and pre-cancer in the stomach, there is no endoscopic procedure offering both high sensitivity and high specificity. Our data suggest that multispectral or hyperspectral imaging may be helpful to solve this problem. It is successfully applied to the detection and analysis of easily reachable carcinomas, ex-vivo samples of hollow organ mucosal carcinomas and also histological samples. An endoscopy system which allows flexible multispectral videoendoscopy for in-vivo diagnostics has so far been unavailable. To overcome this problem, we modified a standard Olympus endoscopy system to conduct in-vivo multispectral imaging of the upper GI tract. The pilot study is performed on 14 patients with adeno carcinomas in the stomach. For analysis, Support Vector Machine with linear and Gaussian Kernel, AdaBoost, RobustBoost and Random-Forest-walk are used and compared for the data classification with a leave-one-out strategy. The margin of the carcinoma for the training of the classifier is drawn by expert-labeling. The cancer findings are cross-checked by biopsies. We expect that the present study will help to improve the further development of hyperspectral endoscopy and to overcome some of the problems to be faced in this process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it