Cytologic Scoring of Equine Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH): Performance of Human Experts and a Deep Learning-Based Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) is a relevant respiratory disease in sport horses which can be diagnosed by examination of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cells using the total hemosiderin score (THS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of trained annotators and to validate a deep learning-based algorithm for the THS. Digitized, iron-stained cytological specimens were prepared from 52 equine BALF samples. Ten annotators produced a THS for each slide according to published methods. The reference methods for comparing annotator’s and algorithmic performance included a ground truth dataset, the mean annotators’ THSs, and chemical iron measurements. Results of the study showed that annotators had marked inter-observer variability of the THS, which was mostly due to a systematic error between annotators in grading the intracytoplasmatic hemosiderin content of individual macrophages. Regarding overall measurement error between the annotators, 87.7% of the variance of the could be reduced by using standardized grades based on the ground truth. The algorithm was highly consistent with the ground truth in assigning hemosiderin grades. Compared to the ground truth THS, annotators had an accuracy of diagnosing EIPH (THS of < or ≥ 75) of 75.7% whereas the algorithm had an accuracy of 92.3% with no marked difference in correlation to chemical iron measurements. The results show that deep learning-based algorithms are useful for improving reproducibility and routine applicability of the THS. For THS by experts, a diagnostic uncertainty interval of 40 to 110 is proposed. THSs within this interval have insufficient reproducibility regarding the EIPH diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".