Using Machine Learning for Endoscopic Detection of Low‐Grade Subglottic Stenosis: A Proof of Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study trains, tests, and evaluates a deep learning algorithm to detect subglottic stenosis (SGS) on endoscopy. A retrospective review of patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy-bronchoscopy was performed. A pretrained image classifier (Resnet50) was retrained and tested on 159 images of airways taken at the glottis, 106 normal-sized airways, and 122 with SGS. Data augmentation was performed given the small sample size to prevent overfitting. Overall model accuracy was 73.3% (SD: 3.8). Precision and recall for stenosis were 77.3% (SD: 4.0) and 72.7 (SD: 4.0). F1 score for the detection of stenosis was 0.75 (SD: 0.04). Precision and recall for normal-sized images were lower at 69% (SD: 4.35) and 74% (SD: 4), with an F1 score of 0.71 (SD: 0.04). This study demonstrates that an image classification algorithm can identify SGS on endoscopic images. Work is needed to improve diagnostic accuracy for eventual deployment of the algorithm into clinical care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".