MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407285227 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.009

A9 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO OPTIMIZE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED OPTICAL POLYP DIAGNOSIS

2025· article· en· W4407285227 on OpenAlex
Megan Oleksiw, Roupen Djinbachian, Daniel von Renteln

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled the development of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems which offer real-time endoscopic pathology prediction of colorectal polyps. However, the clinical benefit of CADx assisted optical diagnosis remains questionable due to lack of diagnostic ability improvement compared to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Aims This study aimed to assess diagnostic performance of a novel implementation framework in which optical diagnosis replaces pathology only if CADx and endoscopist agree on polyp diagnosis. We aimed to compare this proposed framework to non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort undergoing optical polyp diagnosis at our center. Polyps measuring ≤5mm (diminutive) with available non CADx assisted and CADx assisted optical polyp diagnosis documentation were included in our analysis. In CADx assisted cases, first the CADx diagnostic output was documented, followed by the endoscopist’s final diagnosis after having seen the CADx diagnostic information. Only cases where the endoscopist agreed with the CADx output were retained for CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy for cases in which the endoscopist agreed with the CADx diagnostic output versus non CADx assisted OD, using pathology as a reference standard. Secondary outcomes included surveillance interval agreement, prevalence of high-confidence diagnoses, and rectosigmoid negative predictive value (NPV). Results A total of 817 polyps were included in our analysis. Endoscopists agreed with the CADx diagnostic output in 74.3% of cases. Using CADx-assisted optical diagnosis based on CADx and endoscopist diagnostic agreement, 326/439 diminutive polyps could undergo optical polyp diagnosis in the CADx assisted arm and 378/378 in the non CADx assisted OD arm. Using diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx as a framework for CADx assisted optical diagnosis demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy, 82.8% (95% CI, 78.7-86.9), compared to accuracy of non CADx assisted optical diagnosis, 76.7% (95% CI, 71.3-80.0) (p=0.0256). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that using cases with diagnostic agreement between endoscopist and CADx increases diagnostic accuracy for CADx-assisted OD implementation. Using this framework, CADx assisted OD outperforms non CADx assisted optical diagnosis. Funding Agencies None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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