Back

Interpretable machine learning for coeliac disease diagnosis: quantitative morphometry of duodenal biopsies

Bryant, R.; Romero Diaz, J.; Scott, A. G.; Sagdeo, A. A.; Jenkins, G. Z.; Richardson, R. A.; Chan, J. Y. C.; Arends, M. J.; Soilleux, E. J.; Jaeckle, F.

2026-06-03 pathology
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354731 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Coeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the global population and remains substantially underdiagnosed. Histopathological assessment of duodenal biopsies is the diagnostic gold standard but is subject to approximately 20% inter-observer disagreement. While machine learning approaches show promise, most prior work relies on black-box models with limited interpretability, restricting clinical adoption. Methods We present an interpretable pipeline that follows established histopathological criteria by extracting clinically meaningful morphological features from H&E-stained whole-slide images. Five sequential stages perform pre-processing, semantic segmentation of villi, crypts, intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) and enterocytes, crypt morphometry, villus length estimation via a novel polyline-based keypoint model, and coeliac disease classification using three quantitative features: IEL-to-enterocyte ratio, villus-to-crypt area ratio, and villus-length-to-crypt-depth ratio. Training and validation used data from four institutions; independent testing used 1,357 WSIs from two further institutions including one with a previously unseen scanner manufacturer, spanning five diagnostic categories: coeliac disease, normal mucosa, chronic inflammation, gastric metaplasia, and gastric heterotopia. Results Semantic segmentation achieved villus and crypt precision and recall of 87-90%. Villus length estimation correlated strongly with expert annotations (Pearson's r=0.85, mean relative error 13.5% post-calibration). All three morphological features significantly separated coeliac disease from all non-coeliac diagnostic groups across internal and external datasets (p<0.01 in all comparisons). On the test set the diagnostic classifier achieved accuracy 94.5%, PPV 92.9%, NPV 94.7%, and AUC 0.982. Conclusions This interpretable framework achieves strong multi-centre diagnostic performance while producing quantitative morphological outputs, villus length, crypt depth, and IEL-to-enterocyte ratios, that directly reflect established histopathological criteria, representing a meaningful step towards standardised AI-assisted coeliac disease diagnosis.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.4%
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
6
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
7
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
8
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
10
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
13
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.5%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
20
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
22
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Diabetologia
36 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
27
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
28
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
29
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%