Artificial Intelligence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Endoscopy: Implications for Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence shows promise for clinical research in inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy. Accurate assessment of endoscopic activity is important in clinical practice and inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials. Emerging artificial intelligence technologies can increase efficiency and accuracy of assessing the baseline endoscopic appearance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and the impact that therapeutic interventions may have on mucosal healing in both of these contexts. In this review, state-of-the-art endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials is described, covering the potential for artificial intelligence to transform the current paradigm, its limitations, and suggested next steps. Site-based artificial intelligence quality evaluation and inclusion of patients in clinical trials without the need for a central reader is proposed; for following patient progress, a second reading using AI alongside a central reader with expedited reading is proposed. Artificial intelligence will support precision endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease and is on the threshold of advancing inflammatory bowel disease clinical trial recruitment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".