From Staining Techniques to Artificial Intelligence: A Review of Colorectal Polyps Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving techniques in image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for the characterization of colorectal polyps, and the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy. We discuss the historical use of dye-spray and virtual chromoendoscopy for the characterization of colorectal polyps, which are now being replaced with more advanced technologies. Specifically, we focus on the application of AI to create a "virtual biopsy" for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with potential for replacing histopathological diagnosis. The incorporation of AI has the potential to provide an evolutionary learning system that aids in the diagnosis and management of patients with the best possible outcomes. A detailed analysis of the literature supporting AI-assisted diagnostic techniques for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with a particular emphasis on AI's characterization mechanism, is provided. The benefits of AI over traditional IEE techniques, including the reduction in human error in diagnosis, and its potential to provide an accurate diagnosis with similar accuracy to the gold standard are presented. However, the need for large-scale testing of AI in clinical practice and the importance of integrating patient data into the diagnostic process are acknowledged. In conclusion, the constant evolution of IEE technology and the potential for AI to revolutionize the field of endoscopy in the future are presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".