MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180849438 · doi:10.4018/ijeach.2021070101

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopy in Ulcerative Colitis

2021· article· en· W3180849438 on OpenAlexaff
Petros Zezos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Extreme Automation and Connectivity in Healthcare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisMedicineEndoscopyInflammatory bowel diseaseColonoscopyGastroenterologyGold standard (test)DiseaseInternal medicineCrohn's diseaseInflammatory Bowel DiseasesGastrointestinal tractColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are disorders that cause chronic inflammation in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The two most common forms of IBD are Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (UC). Imaged by high-definition video-camera via the colonoscope, the mucosa of the colon is recorded and examined by the endoscopist. Endoscopy is the gold standard method of discerning the disease severity and the treatment outcome in patients with UC. Determining the severity and the extent of the disease is important in guiding the management. This is challenging due to inter-individual variation, subjectivity in reporting endoscopic scores, and human time commitment. To address these concerns, computational aids via artificial intelligence (AI) can contribute to the processing of endoscopy data. In this editorial, the authors provide an overview of AI use in the endoscopic assessment UC activity and severity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Extreme Automation and Connectivity in HealthcareSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207