MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229025139 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1744593

A VIRTUAL CHROMOENDOSCOPY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM TO DETECT ENDOSCOPIC AND HISTOLOGIC REMISSION IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS

2022· article· en· W4229025139 on OpenAlexaff
Marietta Iacucci, Rosanna Cannatelli, Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi, Andrea Buda, Nunzia Labarile, O M Nardone, Gian Eugenio Tontini, Alessandro Rimondi, Alina Bazarova, Pradeep Bhandari, Raf Bisschops, G De Hertogh, Rocío del Amor, José G. Ferraz, Martin Goetz, Xian Yong Gui, Bu Hayee, R Kiesslich, Mark Lazarev, Valery Naranjo, Remo Panaccione, Adolfo Parra‐Blanco, Luca Pastorelli, Timo Räth, Elin Synnøve Røyset, M Vieth, V. Villanacci, Davide Zardo, Sandip Ghosh, Enrico Grisan

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromoendoscopyMedicineUlcerative colitisGastroenterologyColonoscopyInternal medicineEndoscopyInflammatory bowel diseaseColorectal cancerDiseaseCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system to assess endoscopic remission (ER) and histologic remission (HR) of ulcerative colitis (UC) in both white light (WL, using Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity [UCEIS]) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE, using Paddington International Virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre [PICaSSO]).\n\nMethods A convolutional neural network (CNN) was developed based on 559 endoscopy videos, from 302 UC patients prospectively included in the PICaSSO multicentre study. The videos were divided in training (254), validation (62), and testing (243), and comprised 67280 frames in total. The CNN was trained to predict both ER (defined as UCEIS≤1 in WL and as PICaSSO≤3 in VCE) and HR (defined as Robarts Histological Index ≤ 3 with no neutrophils in lamina propria or epithelium) in video clips.\n\nResults In the validation cohort, our system predicted ER in WL videos with 82% sensitivity, 94% specificity and an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.92. In VCE, sensitivity was 74%, specificity 95%, and AUROC 0.95. In the testing cohort, the diagnostic performance remained similar.\n\nThe diagnostic performance for the prediction of HR in the validation set had sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92%, 83%, and 85%, respectively, using VCE; and 83%, 87%, and 86% respectively, with WL. In the testing set, these metrics declined modestly while remaining good. Of note, the algorithm’s prediction of histology was similar with VCE and WL videos.\n\nConclusions Our AI system accurately recognizes ER in videos and predicts HR equally well.\n\n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207