MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212905562 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-06726-2

Artificial intelligence enabled automated diagnosis and grading of ulcerative colitis endoscopy images

2022· article· en· W4212905562 on OpenAlexafffund
Reed T. Sutton, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane, Randolph Goebel, Daniel C. Baumgart

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Machine Intelligence InstituteUniversity of AlbertaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Health ServicesGovernment of AlbertaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceHyperparameterConvolutional neural networkGrading (engineering)Computer scienceColonoscopyUlcerative colitisArtificial neural networkClass (philosophy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningColorectal cancerMedicinePathologyCancerDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopic evaluation to reliably grade disease activity, detect complications including cancer and verification of mucosal healing are paramount in the care of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC); but this evaluation is hampered by substantial intra- and interobserver variability. Recently, artificial intelligence methodologies have been proposed to facilitate more objective, reproducible endoscopic assessment. In a first step, we compared how well several deep learning convolutional neural network architectures (CNNs) applied to a diverse subset of 8000 labeled endoscopic still images derived from HyperKvasir, the largest multi-class image and video dataset from the gastrointestinal tract available today. The HyperKvasir dataset includes 110,079 images and 374 videos and could (1) accurately distinguish UC from non-UC pathologies, and (2) inform the Mayo score of endoscopic disease severity. We grouped 851 UC images labeled with a Mayo score of 0-3, into an inactive/mild (236) and moderate/severe (604) dichotomy. Weights were initialized with ImageNet, and Grid Search was used to identify the best hyperparameters using fivefold cross-validation. The best accuracy (87.50%) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) (0.90) was achieved using the DenseNet121 architecture, compared to 72.02% and 0.50 by predicting the majority class ('no skill' model). Finally, we used Gradient-weighted Class Activation Maps (Grad-CAM) to improve visual interpretation of the model and take an explainable artificial intelligence approach (XAI).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations99
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207