Impact of Artificial Intelligence Use on Endoscopist Optical Diagnosis of Sessile Serrated Lesions, Traditional Serrated Adenomas, and Advanced Conventional Adenomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluate Computer Aided Diagnosis (CADx)-assisted and unassisted endoscopist optical diagnosis of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), traditional serrated adenomas, and advanced adenomas. METHODS: We performed an IRB-approved secondary analysis of a large prospective colonoscopy cohort. RESULTS: Of 2,111 polyps (1,011 patients), 116 were histopathology-proven SSLs. Sensitivity for SSL identification of CADx-assisted and unassisted optical diagnosis was 55.7% (95% CI 42.9-67.8) and 38.6% (95% CI 22.7-57.3), respectively. Endoscopists correctly identified SSLs more frequently when CADx classified these as hyperplastic compared with neoplastic (66.7% [95% CI 51.8-78.9] vs 24.5% [95% CI 10.8-46.3]; P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: CADx use did neither significantly harm nor improve optical diagnostic performance for SSLs despite CADx inability to classify SSLs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".