MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006805607 · doi:10.1002/lary.28539

Automatic Recognition of Laryngoscopic Images Using a Deep‐Learning Technique

2020· article· en· W3006805607 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersChengdu Science and Technology BureauFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesSichuan University
KeywordsMedicineLaryngoscopyMalignancyLeukoplakiaRadiologyInternal medicineCancerSurgeryIntubation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To develop a deep-learning-based computer-aided diagnosis system for distinguishing laryngeal neoplasms (benign, precancerous lesions, and cancer) and improve the clinician-based accuracy of diagnostic assessments of laryngoscopy findings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: A total of 24,667 laryngoscopy images (normal, vocal nodule, polyps, leukoplakia and malignancy) were collected to develop and test a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based classifier. A comparison between the proposed CNN-based classifier and the clinical visual assessments (CVAs) by 12 otolaryngologists was conducted. RESULTS: In the independent testing dataset, an overall accuracy of 96.24% was achieved; for leukoplakia, benign, malignancy, normal, and vocal nodule, the sensitivity and specificity were 92.8% vs. 98.9%, 97% vs. 99.7%, 89% vs. 99.3%, 99.0% vs. 99.4%, and 97.2% vs. 99.1%, respectively. Furthermore, when compared with CVAs on the randomly selected test dataset, the CNN-based classifier outperformed physicians for most laryngeal conditions, with striking improvements in the ability to distinguish nodules (98% vs. 45%, P < .001), polyps (91% vs. 86%, P < .001), leukoplakia (91% vs. 65%, P < .001), and malignancy (90% vs. 54%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The CNN-based classifier can provide a valuable reference for the diagnosis of laryngeal neoplasms during laryngoscopy, especially for distinguishing benign, precancerous, and cancer lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:E686-E693, 2020.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it