MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390246186 · doi:10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100417

Endometrial Pipelle Biopsy Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study

2023· article· en· W4390246186 on OpenAlexaff
Sanne Vermorgen, Thijs Gelton, Peter Bult, Heidi V.N. Küsters‐Vandevelde, Jitka Hausnerová, Koen Van de Vijver, Ben Davidson, Ingunn M. Stefansson, Loes Kooreman, Adelina Qerimi, Jutta Huvila, C. Blake Gilks, Maryam Shahi, Saskia F. Zomer, Carla Bartosch, Johanna M.A. Pijnenborg, Johan Bulten, Francesco Ciompi, Michiel Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Pathology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumRadboud Universiteit
KeywordsBiopsyMedicinePathologyHematopathologyMedical physicsRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial biopsies are important in the diagnostic workup of women who present with abnormal uterine bleeding or hereditary risk of endometrial cancer. In general, approximately 10% of all endometrial biopsies demonstrate endometrial (pre)malignancy that requires specific treatment. As the diagnostic evaluation of mostly benign cases results in a substantial workload for pathologists, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted preselection of biopsies could optimize the workflow. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of AI-assisted diagnosis for endometrial biopsies (endometrial Pipelle biopsy computer-aided diagnosis), trained on daily-practice whole-slide images instead of highly selected images. Endometrial biopsies were classified into 6 clinically relevant categories defined as follows: nonrepresentative, normal, nonneoplastic, hyperplasia without atypia, hyperplasia with atypia, and malignant. The agreement among 15 pathologists, within these classifications, was evaluated in 91 endometrial biopsies. Next, an algorithm (trained on a total of 2819 endometrial biopsies) rated the same 91 cases, and we compared its performance using the pathologist's classification as the reference standard. The interrater reliability among pathologists was moderate with a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.51, whereas for a binary classification into benign vs (pre)malignant, the agreement was substantial with a mean Cohen's kappa of 0.66. The AI algorithm performed slightly worse for the 6 categories with a moderate Cohen's kappa of 0.43 but was comparable for the binary classification with a substantial Cohen's kappa of 0.65. AI-assisted diagnosis of endometrial biopsies was demonstrated to be feasible in discriminating between benign and (pre)malignant endometrial tissues, even when trained on unselected cases. Endometrial premalignancies remain challenging for both pathologists and AI algorithms. Future steps to improve reliability of the diagnosis are needed to achieve a more refined AI-assisted diagnostic solution for endometrial biopsies that covers both premalignant and malignant diagnoses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.261 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern PathologySame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207