Assessing the impact of deep‐learning assistance on the histopathological diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (<scp>STIC</scp>) in fallopian tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, it has become clear that artificial intelligence (AI) models can achieve high accuracy in specific pathology-related tasks. An example is our deep-learning model, designed to automatically detect serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC), the precursor lesion to high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, found in the fallopian tube. However, the standalone performance of a model is insufficient to determine its value in the diagnostic setting. To evaluate the impact of the use of this model on pathologists' performance, we set up a fully crossed multireader, multicase study, in which 26 participants, from 11 countries, reviewed 100 digitalized H&E-stained slides of fallopian tubes (30 cases/70 controls) with and without AI assistance, with a washout period between the sessions. We evaluated the effect of the deep-learning model on accuracy, slide review time and (subjectively perceived) diagnostic certainty, using mixed-models analysis. With AI assistance, we found a significant increase in accuracy (p < 0.01) whereby the average sensitivity increased from 82% to 93%. Further, there was a significant 44 s (32%) reduction in slide review time (p < 0.01). The level of certainty that the participants felt versus their own assessment also significantly increased, by 0.24 on a 10-point scale (p < 0.01). In conclusion, we found that, in a diverse group of pathologists and pathology residents, AI support resulted in a significant improvement in the accuracy of STIC diagnosis and was coupled with a substantial reduction in slide review time. This model has the potential to provide meaningful support to pathologists in the diagnosis of STIC, ultimately streamlining and optimizing the overall diagnostic process.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".