Deep Learning Model Using Stool Pictures for Predicting Endoscopic Mucosal Inflammation in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stool characteristics may change depending on the endoscopic activity of ulcerative colitis (UC). We developed a deep learning model using stool photographs of patients with UC (DLSUC) to predict endoscopic mucosal inflammation. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study conducted in 6 tertiary referral hospitals. Patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy for mucosal inflammation monitoring were asked to take photographs of their stool using smartphones within 1 week before the day of endoscopy. DLSUC was developed using 2,161 stool pictures from 306 patients and tested on 1,047 stool images from 126 patients. The UC endoscopic index of severity was used to define endoscopic activity. The performance of DLSUC in endoscopic activity prediction was compared with that of fecal calprotectin (Fcal). RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of DLSUC for predicting endoscopic activity was 0.801 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.717-0.873), which was not statistically different from the AUC of Fcal (0.837 [95% CI, 0.767-0.899, DeLong P = 0.458]). When rectal-sparing cases (23/126, 18.2%) were excluded, the AUC of DLSUC increased to 0.849 (95% CI, 0.760-0.919). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of DLSUC in predicting endoscopic activity were 0.746, 0.662, and 0.877 in all patients and 0.845, 0.745, and 0.958 in patients without rectal sparing, respectively. Active patients classified by DLSUC were more likely to experience disease relapse during a median 8-month follow-up (log-rank test, P = 0.002). DISCUSSION: DLSUC demonstrated a good discriminating power similar to that of Fcal in predicting endoscopic activity with improved accuracy in patients without rectal sparing. This study implies that stool photographs are a useful monitoring tool for typical UC.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".