MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comprehensive Guide to Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasound

2023· preprint· en· W4368370499 on OpenAlexaff
Kareem Khalaf, Maria Terrin, Manol Jovani, Tommy Rizkala, Marco Spadaccini, Katarzyna M. Pawlak, Matteo Colombo, Marta Andreozzi, Alessandro Fugazza, Antonio Facciorusso, Fabio Grizzi, Cesare Hassan, Alessandro Repici, Silvia Carrara

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisMedicineRadiologyEndoscopic ultrasoundSampling (signal processing)BiopsyConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePathologyComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) is widely used for the diagnosis of bilio-pancreatic and gastrointestinal (GI) tract diseases, for the evaluation of subepithelial lesions, and for sampling of lymph nodes and solid masses lo-cated next to the GI tract. The role of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare in growing. This review aimed to provide an overview of the current state of AI in EUS from imaging to pathological diagnosis and training. Methods: AI algorithms can assist in lesion detection and characterization in EUS by analysing EUS images and identifying suspicious areas that may require further clinical evaluation or biopsy sampling. Deep learning tech-niques, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have shown great potential for tumour identification and subepithelial lesion (SEL) evaluation by extracting important features from EUS images and using them to classify or segment the images. Results: AI models with new features can increase the accuracy of diagnoses, provide faster diagnoses, identify subtle differences in disease presentation that may be missed by human eyes, and provide more information and in-sights into disease pathology. Conclusions: The integration of AI in EUS images and biopsies has the potential to improve the diagnostic accura-cy, leading to better patient outcomes and to a reduction of repeated procedures in case of non-diagnostic biopsies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.010

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.174 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207