Artificial intelligence and deep learning for small bowel capsule 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
Capsule endoscopy is ideally suited to artificial intelligence-based interpretation given its reliance on pattern recognition in still images. Time saving viewing modes and lesion detection features currently available rely on machine learning algorithms, a form of artificial intelligence. Current software necessitates close human supervision given poor sensitivity relative to an expert reader. However, with the advent of deep learning, artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly reliable and will be increasingly relied upon. We review the major advances in artificial intelligence for capsule endoscopy in recent publications and briefly review artificial intelligence development for historical understanding. Importantly, recent advancements in artificial intelligence have not yet been incorporated into practice and it is immature to judge the potential of this technology based on current platforms. Remaining regulatory and standardization hurdles are being overcome and artificial intelligence-based clinical applications are likely to proliferate rapidly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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