Interpretable Computer Vision to Detect and Classify Structural Laryngeal Lesions in Digital Flexible Laryngoscopic Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To localize structural laryngeal lesions within digital flexible laryngoscopic images and to classify them as benign or suspicious for malignancy using state-of-the-art computer vision detection models. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional diagnostic study SETTING: Tertiary care voice clinic METHODS: Digital stroboscopic videos, demographic and clinical data were collected from patients evaluated for a structural laryngeal lesion. Laryngoscopic images were extracted from videos and manually labeled with bounding boxes encompassing the lesion. Four detection models were employed to simultaneously localize and classify structural laryngeal lesions in laryngoscopic images. Classification accuracy, intersection over union (IoU) and mean average precision (mAP) were evaluated as measures of classification, localization, and overall performance, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 8,172 images from 147 patients were included in the laryngeal image dataset. Classification accuracy was 88.5 for individual laryngeal images and increased to 92.0 when all images belonging to the same sequence (video) were considered. Mean average precision across all four detection models was 50.1 using an IoU threshold of 0.5 to determine successful localization. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that deep neural network-based detection models trained using a labeled dataset of digital laryngeal images have the potential to classify structural laryngeal lesions as benign or suspicious for malignancy and to localize them within an image. This approach provides valuable insight into which part of the image was used by the model to determine a diagnosis, allowing clinicians to independently evaluate models' predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".