MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323352910 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.108

A108 AUTOMATED DETECTION OF ILEOCECAL VALVE, APPENDICEAL ORIFICE, AND POLYP DURING COLONOSCOPY USING A DEEP LEARNING MODEL

2023· article· en· W4323352910 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Taghiakbari, S Hamidi Ghalehjegh, E Jehanno, T Berthier, L di Jorio, Alan Barkun, Érik Deslandres, Sioui Maldonado Bouchard, Sacha Sidani, Yoshua Bengio, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyArtificial intelligenceIleocecal valveMedicineDeep learningConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceRadiologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Identification and photo-documentation of the ileocecal valve (ICV) and appendiceal orifice (AO) confirm completeness of colonoscopy examinations. We hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI)-empowered solution could help us automatically differentiate anatomical landmarks such as AO and ICV from polyps and normal colon mucosa. Purpose We aimed to develop and test a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model that can automatically identify ICV and AO, and differentiate these landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps. Method We prospectively collected annotated full-length colonoscopy videos of 318 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies. We created three non-overlapping training, validation, and test datasets with 25,444 unaltered frames extracted from the colonoscopy videos showing four landmarks/image classes (AO, ICV, normal mucosa, and polyps). For each landmark, we extracted an average of 30 frames for each time of its appearance. All the extracted frames were reviewed and annotated by a team of three clinicians. Using a quality assessment tool, the clinicians examined a total of 86,754 frames (7982 AO, 8374 ICV, 32,971 polyps, and 37,427 normal mucosa) and verified whether or not the frame contained one unique landmark. For this research, all frames were extracted from the white-light colonoscopies, and all narrow-band imaging frames were excluded. A DCNN classification model was developed, validated, and tested in separate datasets of images. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom the AI model could identify both ICV and AO, and differentiate them from polyps and normal mucosa, with an accuracy of detecting both AO and ICV above a threshold of 40% (representing a value in which reliable identification of the landmarks can be assumed without increasing false-positive alerts). Result(s) We trained a DCNN AI model on 21,503 unaltered frames extracted from the recorded colonoscopy videos of 272 patients, and validated and tested the model on 1,924 (25 patients) and 2,017 (21 patients) unaltered frames, respectively. We applied a transfer learning technique to fine-tune the model parameters to the endoscopic images using a cross-entropy loss function and back-propagation algorithm. After training and validation, the DCNN model could identify both AO and ICV in 18 out of 21 patients (85.71%), if accuracies were above the threshold of 40%. The accuracy of the model for differentiating AO from normal mucosa, and ICV from normal mucosa were 86.37% (95% CI 84.06% to 88.45%), and 86.44% (95% CI 84.06% to 88.59%), respectively. Furthermore, the accuracy of the model for differentiating polyps from normal mucosa was 88.57% (95% CI 86.60% to 90.33%). Conclusion(s) The model can reliably distinguish these anatomical landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps. It can be implemented into automated colonoscopy report generation, photo-documentation, and quality auditing solutions to improve colonoscopy reporting quality. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below Other Please indicate your source of funding; MEDTEQ Disclosure of Interest M. Taghiakbari: None Declared, S. Hamidi Ghalehjegh Employee of: Imagia Canexia Health Inc. , E. Jehanno Employee of: Imagia Canexia Health Inc. , T. Berthier Employee of: Imagia Canexia Health Inc. , L. di Jorio Employee of: Imagia Canexia Health Inc. , A. N. Barkun Grant / Research support from: co-awardee in funded research projects with Imagia Canexia Health Inc., Consultant of: Medtronic Inc. and A.I. VALI Inc, E. Deslandres: None Declared, S. Bouchard: None Declared, S. Sidani: None Declared, Y. Bengio: None Declared, D. von Renteln Grant / Research support from: ERBE, Ventage, Pendopharm, and Pentax, Consultant of: Boston Scientific and Pendopharm

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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