A Deep Learning–Based Approach to Estimate Paneth Cell Granule Area in Celiac Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Changes in Paneth cell numbers can be associated with chronic inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. So far, no consensus has been achieved on the number of Paneth cells and their relevance to celiac disease (CD). OBJECTIVES.—: To compare crypt and Paneth cell granule areas between patients with CD and those without CD (non-CD) using an artificial intelligence-based solution. DESIGN.—: Hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections of duodenal biopsies from 349 patients at the McGill University Health Centre were analyzed. Of these, 185 had a history of CD and 164 were controls. Slides were digitized, and NoCodeSeg, a code-free workflow using open-source software (QuPath, DeepMIB), was implemented to train deep learning models to segment crypts and Paneth cell granules. The total area of the entire analyzed tissue, epithelium, crypts, and Paneth cell granules was documented for all slides, and comparisons were performed. RESULTS.—: A mean intersection-over-union score of 88.76% and 91.30% was achieved for crypt areas and Paneth cell granule segmentations, respectively. On normalization to total tissue area, the crypt to total tissue area in CD was increased and the Paneth cell granule area to total tissue area decreased when compared to non-CD controls. CONCLUSIONS.—: Crypt hyperplasia was confirmed in CD compared to non-CD controls. The area of Paneth cell granules, an indirect measure of Paneth cell function, decreased with increasing severity of CD. More importantly, our study analyzed complete hematoxylin-eosin slide sections using an efficient and easy to use coding-free artificial intelligence workflow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".