Artificial intelligence in interventional pulmonology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In recent years, there has been remarkable progress in the field of artificial intelligence technology. Artificial intelligence applications have been extensively researched and actively implemented across various domains within healthcare. This study reviews the current state of artificial intelligence research in interventional pulmonology and engages in a discussion to comprehend its capabilities and implications. RECENT FINDINGS: Deep learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, has found extensive applications in recent years, enabling highly accurate identification and labeling of bronchial segments solely from intraluminal bronchial images. Furthermore, research has explored the use of artificial intelligence for the analysis of endobronchial ultrasound images, achieving a high degree of accuracy in distinguishing between benign and malignant targets within ultrasound images. These advancements have become possible due to the increased computational power of modern systems and the utilization of vast datasets, facilitating detections and predictions with greater precision and speed. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence integration into interventional pulmonology has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient safety, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes. However, the clinical impacts of artificial intelligence enhanced procedures remain unassessed. Additional research is necessary to evaluate both the advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence in the field of interventional pulmonology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".