Utilizing Deep Learning to Analyze Whole Slide Images of Colonic Biopsies for Associations Between Eosinophil Density and Clinicopathologic Features in Active Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eosinophils have been implicated in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis and have been associated with disease course and therapeutic response. However, associations between eosinophil density, histologic activity, and clinical features have not been rigorously studied. METHODS: A deep learning algorithm was trained to identify eosinophils in colonic biopsies and validated against pathologists' interpretations. The algorithm was applied to sigmoid colon biopsies from a cross-sectional cohort of 88 ulcerative colitis patients with histologically active disease as measured by the Geboes score and Robarts histopathology index (RHI). Associations between eosinophil density, histologic activity, and clinical features were determined. RESULTS: The eosinophil deep learning algorithm demonstrated almost perfect agreement with manual eosinophil counts determined by 4 pathologists (interclass correlation coefficients: 0.805-0.917). Eosinophil density varied widely across patients (median 113.5 cells per mm2, interquartile range 108.9). There was no association between eosinophil density and RHI (P = 0.5). Significant differences in eosinophil density were seen between patients with Montreal E3 vs E2 disease (146.2 cells per mm2 vs 88.2 cells per mm2, P = 0.005). Patients on corticosteroids had significantly lower eosinophil density (62.9 cells per mm2 vs 124.1 cells per mm2, P = 0.006). No association between eosinophil density and biologic use was observed (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a deep learning algorithm to quantify eosinophils in colonic biopsies. Eosinophil density did not correlate with histologic activity but did correlate with disease extent and corticosteroid use. Future studies applying this algorithm in larger cohorts with longitudinal follow-up are needed to further elucidate the role of eosinophils in ulcerative colitis.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".