Artificial intelligence for the analysis of intracoronary optical coherence tomography images: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a valuable tool for, among others, periprocedural guidance of percutaneous coronary revascularization and the assessment of stent failure. However, manual OCT image interpretation is challenging and time-consuming, which limits widespread clinical adoption. Automated analysis of OCT frames using artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution. For example, AI can be employed for automated OCT image interpretation, plaque quantification, and clinical event prediction. Many AI models for these purposes have been proposed in recent years. However, these models have not been systematically evaluated in terms of model characteristics, performances, and bias. We performed a systematic review of AI models developed for OCT analysis to evaluate the trends and performances, including a systematic evaluation of potential sources of bias in model development and evaluation.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it