A Comprehensive Guide to Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 located 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 analyzing EUS images and identifying suspicious areas that may require further clinical evaluation or biopsy sampling. Deep learning techniques, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have shown great potential for tumor 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 insights into disease pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of AI in EUS images and biopsies has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy, leading to better patient outcomes and to a reduction in 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".