MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213382237 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.119

A120 AUTOMATED BOWEL PREPARATION DETECTION WITH DEEP. CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS

2022· article· en· W4213382237 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Low, Zhang-Wei Hong, Abhik Mukherjee, S Jugnundan, Shaina Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTest setColorectal cancerMedicineInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Introduction: Bowel preparation inadequacy has been shown to increase post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. As such, the USMSTF recommends repeating colonoscopy within 1 year if bowel preparation is inadequate. However, bowel preparation documentation is variable in clinical practice, and physician recommendations adherent to USMTF guidelines are inconsistent. Aims Aims: We present an automated computer assisted method using deep convolutional neural networks to detect bowel preparation and adequacy of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Methods Methods: We extracted 38523 images of colonic lumen between 2015 and 2017 from screening colonoscopies. Bowel preparation scores were assessed with BBPS. Adequate bowel preparation was defined as BBPS ≥2, and inadequate bowel preparation was defined as BBPS <2. The dataset was split into 26966 images for training, 7704 for validation, and 3853 for testing. Training data was sampled with replacement from a multinomial distribution to balance subclass distributions in each batch. We developed 2 convoluted neural networks (CNN) using PyTorch with a Densenet-169 backbone pre-trained on ImageNet and fine-tuned on our data for classifying adequacy of bowel preparation (binary) and for subclassification of BBPS (multi-class). We used Adam optimiser with an initial learning rate of 3x10-4 and a scheduler to decay the learning rate of each parameter group by 0.1 every 7 epochs along with focal loss as our criterion for both classifiers. Results Results: The overall accuracy on the test data set for BBPS subclassification was 0.91. The sensitivity for BBPS 0, 1, 2 and 3 were 0.84, 0.91, 0.86, and 0.96, respectively. The specificity for BBPS 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 1.00, 0.98, 0.95, and 0.93, respectively. The overall accuracy of the test data set for adequacy of bowel preparation was 0.97. The sensitivity for adequacy of bowel preparation for BBPS <2 and BBPS ≥2 was 0.92 and 0.99, respectively. The specificity for adequacy of bowel preparation for BBPS <2 and BBPS ≥2 was 0.99 and 0.92, respectively. Conclusions Conclusion: We present an automated computer-assisted detection method of bowel preparation with deep convolutional neural networks. The algorithm is capable of accurate classification of adequacy of bowel preparation (97%) and subclassification of bowel preparation (91%) with high sensitivity and specificity. This algorithm can be applied to automate documentation of bowel preparation and adequacy of bowel preparation. Additional studies will need to be conducted to demonstrate its applicability in real-time colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→