Comparative analysis of natural language processing methodologies for classifying computed tomography enterography reports in Crohn’s disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imaging is crucial to assess disease extent, activity, and outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Artificial intelligence (AI) image interpretation requires automated exploitation of studies at scale as an initial step. Here we evaluate natural language processing to classify Crohn's disease (CD) on CTE. From our population representative IBD registry a sample of CD patients (male: 44.6%, median age: 50 IQR37-60) and controls (n = 981 each) CTE reports were extracted and split into training- (n = 1568), development- (n = 196), and testing (n = 198) datasets each with around 200 words and balanced numbers of labels, respectively. Predictive classification was evaluated with CNN, Bi-LSTM, BERT-110M, LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-LLaMA-70B. While our custom IBDBERT finetuned on expert IBD knowledge (i.e. ACG, AGA, ECCO guidelines), outperformed rule- and rationale extraction-based classifiers (accuracy 88.6% with pre-tuning learning rate 0.00001, AUC 0.945) in predictive performance, LLaMA, but not DeepSeek achieved overall superior results (accuracy 91.2% vs. 88.9%, F1 0.907 vs. 0.874).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 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".