AI-luminating Artificial Intelligence in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Narrative Review on the Role of AI in Endoscopy, Histology, and Imaging for IBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopy, histology, and cross-sectional imaging serve as fundamental pillars in the detection, monitoring, and prognostication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, interpretation of these studies often relies on subjective human judgment, which can lead to delays, intra- and interobserver variability, and potential diagnostic discrepancies. With the rising incidence of IBD globally coupled with the exponential digitization of these data, there is a growing demand for innovative approaches to streamline diagnosis and elevate clinical decision-making. In this context, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies emerge as a timely solution to address the evolving challenges in IBD. Early studies using deep learning and radiomics approaches for endoscopy, histology, and imaging in IBD have demonstrated promising results for using AI to detect, diagnose, characterize, phenotype, and prognosticate IBD. Nonetheless, the available literature has inherent limitations and knowledge gaps that need to be addressed before AI can transition into a mainstream clinical tool for IBD. To better understand the potential value of integrating AI in IBD, we review the available literature to summarize our current understanding and identify gaps in knowledge to inform future investigations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".