Harsh Shah

Harsh Shah, Thomas Jacob, Amruta Parulekar et al.

Normally eosinophils are present in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of healthy individuals. When the eosinophils increase beyond their usual amount in the GI tract, a patient gets varied symptoms. Clinicians find it difficult to diagnose this condition called eosinophilia. Early diagnosis can help in treating patients. Histopathology is the gold standard in the diagnosis for this condition. As this is an under-diagnosed condition, counting eosinophils in the GI tract biopsies is important. In this study, we trained and tested a deep neural network based on UNet to detect and count eosinophils in GI tract biopsies. We used connected component analysis to extract the eosinophils. We studied correlation of eosinophilic infiltration counted by AI with a manual count. GI tract biopsy slides were stained with H&E stain. Slides were scanned using a camera attached to a microscope and five high-power field images were taken per slide. Pearson correlation coefficient was 85% between the machine-detected and manual eosinophil counts on 300 held-out (test) images.

Yunkai Xiao, Gabriel Zingle, Qinjin Jia et al.

Effective peer assessment requires students to be attentive to the deficiencies in the work they rate. Thus, their reviews should identify problems. But what ways are there to check that they do? We attempt to automate the process of deciding whether a review comment detects a problem. We use over 18,000 review comments that were labeled by the reviewees as either detecting or not detecting a problem with the work. We deploy several traditional machine-learning models, as well as neural-network models using GloVe and BERT embeddings. We find that the best performer is the Hierarchical Attention Network classifier, followed by the Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) Attention and Capsule model with scores of 93.1% and 90.5% respectively. The best non-neural network model was the support vector machine with a score of 89.71%. This is followed by the Stochastic Gradient Descent model and the Logistic Regression model with 89.70% and 88.98%.