ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Interpretable machine learning-based detection of coeliac disease.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generalisability of an adult-trained AI model to paediatric coeliac disease diagnosis: a multicentre external validation study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Duodenal Biopsy Audit: Relative Frequency of Diagnoses, Key Words on Request Forms Indicating Severe Pathology, and Potential Diagnoses for Intraepithelial Lymphocytosis, as a Foundation for Developing Artificial Intelligence Diagnostic Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Socialising artificial intelligence in diagnostic cellular pathology.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Coeliac disease, an autoimmune disorder affecting approximately 1% of the global population, is typically diagnosed on duodenal biopsy. However, interpathologist agreement on coeliac disease diagnosis is only 80%. Existing machine learning solutions designed to improve coeliac disease diagnosis often lack interpretability, which is essential for building trust and enabling widespread clinical adoption. We aim to develop an interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) model segmenting key histological structures in H&E-stained duodenal biopsies, generating explainable segmentation masks, estimating intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL)-to-enterocyte and villus-to-crypt ratios and diagnosing coeliac disease. Methods and Analysis: Semantic segmentation models were trained to identify villi, crypts, IELs and enterocytes using 49 annotated 2048×2048 patches at 40× magnification. Subsequently, IEL-to-enterocyte and villus-to-crypt ratios were calculated from segmentation masks generated by the segmentation model from 172 whole slide images (WSIs), and a logistic regression model was trained to diagnose coeliac disease based on these ratios. Evaluation was performed on an independent test set of 613 WSIs from an independent medical institution. Results: The villus-crypt segmentation model achieved mean precision-recall area under the curve (AUC) of 80.5%, while the IEL-enterocyte model reached precision-recall AUC of 82%. The diagnostic model classified WSIs with 96% accuracy, 86% positive predictive value and 98% negative predictive value on the independent test set. Conclusions: Our interpretable AI models accurately segmented key histological structures and diagnosed coeliac disease in unseen WSIs, demonstrating strong generalisation performance. These models provide pathologists with reliable IEL-to-enterocyte and villus-to-crypt ratio estimates, enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Interpretable AI solutions like ours are essential for fostering trust among healthcare professionals and patients, complementing existing black-box methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.