MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400211168 · doi:10.5230/jgc.2024.24.e28

Real-World Application of Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Pathologic Gastric Atypia and Neoplastic Lesions

2024· article· en· W4400211168 on OpenAlexaff
Young Hoon Chang, Cheol Min Shin, Hae Dong Lee, Jinbae Park, Jiwoon Jeon, Soo‐Jeong Cho, Seung Joo Kang, Jae‐Yong Chung, Yu Kyung Jun, Yonghoon Choi, Hyuk Yoon, Young Soo Park, Nayoung Kim, Dong Ho Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtypiaPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Results of initial endoscopic biopsy of gastric lesions often differ from those of the final pathological diagnosis. We evaluated whether an artificial intelligence-based gastric lesion detection and diagnostic system, ENdoscopy as AI-powered Device Computer Aided Diagnosis for Gastroscopy (ENAD CAD-G), could reduce this discrepancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected 24,948 endoscopic images of early gastric cancers (EGCs), dysplasia, and benign lesions from 9,892 patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2011 and 2021. The diagnostic performance of ENAD CAD-G was evaluated using the following real-world datasets: patients referred from community clinics with initial biopsy results of atypia (n=154), participants who underwent endoscopic resection for neoplasms (Internal video set, n=140), and participants who underwent endoscopy for screening or suspicion of gastric neoplasm referred from community clinics (External video set, n=296). RESULTS: ENAD CAD-G classified the referred gastric lesions of atypia into EGC (accuracy, 82.47%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76.46%-88.47%), dysplasia (88.31%; 83.24%-93.39%), and benign lesions (83.12%; 77.20%-89.03%). In the Internal video set, ENAD CAD-G identified dysplasia and EGC with diagnostic accuracies of 88.57% (95% CI, 83.30%-93.84%) and 91.43% (86.79%-96.07%), respectively, compared with an accuracy of 60.71% (52.62%-68.80%) for the initial biopsy results (P<0.001). In the External video set, ENAD CAD-G classified EGC, dysplasia, and benign lesions with diagnostic accuracies of 87.50% (83.73%-91.27%), 90.54% (87.21%-93.87%), and 88.85% (85.27%-92.44%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ENAD CAD-G is superior to initial biopsy for the detection and diagnosis of gastric lesions that require endoscopic resection. ENAD CAD-G can assist community endoscopists in identifying gastric lesions that require endoscopic resection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Gastric Cancer AssociationSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207