An Analysis of YOLOvX Deep Learning Models for Colon Cancer Detection
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
Around the world, Colorectal cancer is still a prevalent form of cancer, and effective treatment and its impact depends on early diagnosis. Recently, polyp detection methods employ a convolutional neural networks to identify precancerous or malignant polyps in colonoscopy images accurately with high speed and precision. This study evaluates four deep learning models namely YOLOv3n, YOLOv5s, YOLOv7, and YOLOv7x, to determine their effectiveness in detecting colorectal cancer polyp frames efficiently. Among these, YOLOv7x model exhibited outstanding performance on the Hyper Kavasir dataset compared to other models, achieving an F1 score of 88.0%, a recall of 86.4%, a precision of 89.5%, and a mAP of 92.0% at a confidence threshold of 0.353. The achieved results highlight the unique capability of models in detecting CRC polyps for diagnosis. Incorporating such detection models can help physicians significantly in clinical practice to improve their ability to identify malignant polyps, ultimately leading to better treatment for patients. Gastroenterologists can benefit considerably from these models as diagnostic tools because of their speed and accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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