MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021965851 · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.04.074

A primer on artificial intelligence and its application to endoscopy

2020· review· en· W3021965851 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

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorkflowCapsule endoscopyEndoscopyArtificial intelligencePathologyRadiologyComputer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful and exciting new technology poised to impact many aspects of health care. In endoscopy, AI is now being used to detect and characterize benign and malignant GI lesions and assess malignant lesion depth of invasion. It will undoubtedly also find use in capsule endoscopy and inflammatory bowel disease. Herein, we provide the general endoscopist with a brief overview of AI and its emerging uses in our field. We also touch on the challenges of incorporating AI into clinical practice, such as workflow integration, data storage, and data privacy. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful and exciting new technology poised to impact many aspects of health care. In endoscopy, AI is now being used to detect and characterize benign and malignant GI lesions and assess malignant lesion depth of invasion. It will undoubtedly also find use in capsule endoscopy and inflammatory bowel disease. Herein, we provide the general endoscopist with a brief overview of AI and its emerging uses in our field. We also touch on the challenges of incorporating AI into clinical practice, such as workflow integration, data storage, and data privacy.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.286 · 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