Deep Learning in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is used to inspect the lumen or interior of the GI tract for several purposes, including, (1) making a clinical diagnosis, in real time, based on the visual appearances; (2) taking targeted tissue samples for subsequent histopathological examination; and (3) in some cases, performing therapeutic interventions targeted at specific lesions. GI endoscopy is therefore predicated on the assumption that the operator-the endoscopist-is able to identify and characterize abnormalities or lesions accurately and reproducibly. However, as in other areas of clinical medicine, such as histopathology and radiology, many studies have documented marked interobserver and intraobserver variability in lesion recognition. Thus, there is a clear need and opportunity for techniques or methodologies that will enhance the quality of lesion recognition and diagnosis and improve the outcomes of GI endoscopy. Deep learning models provide a basis to make better clinical decisions in medical image analysis. Biomedical image segmentation, classification, and registration can be improved with deep learning. Recent evidence suggests that the application of deep learning methods to medical image analysis can contribute significantly to computer-aided diagnosis. Deep learning models are usually considered to be more flexible and provide reliable solutions for image analysis problems compared to conventional computer vision models. The use of fast computers offers the possibility of real-time support that is important for endoscopic diagnosis, which has to be made in real time. Advanced graphics processing units and cloud computing have also favored the use of machine learning, and more particularly, deep learning for patient care. This paper reviews the rapidly evolving literature on the feasibility of applying deep learning algorithms to endoscopic imaging.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".