A comprehensive multimodal dataset and benchmark for ulcerative colitis scoring in endoscopy
Authors: Noha Ghatwary, Jiangbei Yue, Ahmed Elgendy, Hanna Nagdy, Ahmed Galal, Hayam Fathy, Hussein El-Amin, Venkataraman Subramanian, Noor Mohammed, Gilberto Ochoa-Ruiz, Sharib Ali
Organizations: Computer Engineering Department, Arab Academy for Science and Technology,Smart Village, Giza, Egypt · AI in Medicine and Surgery group, School of Computer Science, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, United Kingdom · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada · Internal Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Arab Academy for Science and Technology, Egypt · Internal medicine, Alexandria University, Egypt · Internal medicine, Division Hepatogastroenterology, Assiut university, Egypt · Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom · School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic mucosal inflammatory condition that places patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic surveillance remains the gold standard for assessing disease activity, and reporting typically relies on standardised endoscopic scoring metrics. The most widely used is the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES), with some centres also adopting the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS). Both are descriptive assessments of mucosal inflammation (MES: 0 to 3; UCEIS: 0 to 8), where higher values indicate more severe disease. However, computational methods for automatically predicting these scores remain limited, largely due to the lack of publicly available expert-annotated datasets and the absence of robust benchmarking. There is also a significant research gap in generating clinically meaningful descriptions of UC images, despite image captioning being a well-established computer vision task. Variability in endoscopic systems and procedural workflows across centres further highlights the need for multi-centre datasets to ensure algorithmic robustness and generalisability. In this work, we introduce a curated multi-centre, multi-resolution dataset that includes expert-validated MES and UCEIS labels, alongside detailed clinical descriptions. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive dataset that combines dual scoring metrics for classification tasks with expert-generated captions describing mucosal appearance and clinically accepted reasoning for image captioning. This resource opens new opportunities for developing clinically meaningful multimodal algorithms. In addition to the dataset, we also provide benchmarking using convolutional neural networks, vision transformers, hybrid models, and widely used multimodal vision-language captioning algorithms.
Figures & tables
UCEIS-0
UCEIS-1
UCEIS-2
UCEIS-3
UCEIS-4
UCEIS-5
UCEIS-6
UCEIS-7
UCEIS-8
Total
MES-0
285
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
294
MES-1
4
202
252
45
15
5
1
0
0
524
MES-2
1
0
129
319
254
124
81
0
0
908
MES-3
0
0
2
7
24
221
173
150
192
769
Total
290
208
386
371
293
350
255
150
192
2495
Table 1: Distribution of the MES and UCEIS scores for the full dataset comprised of 2945 images total from the three Subsets. Each value indicate the number of images in each score combination.
Figure 1: Distribution of MES and UCEIS scores categories across three Subsets for the full dataset. The inner ring represents the MES-score distribution while the outer ring represents the UCEIS distribution each with corresponding percentages. The total number of images per subset is shown in the center of the chart
Figure 2: Representative sample for different MES score across the three subsets. Rows presents the MES Scores (MES-0, MES-1, MES-2 and MES-3) while columns presents the three Subsets consecutively
Figure 3: Overview of annotation pipeline, illustrating features selected by gastroenterologist and the generation of descriptive caption.
Figure 4: Sample images from the dataset with captions presenting different grades of MES score with varied properties
Model
Top-1 Accuracy
F1-score
AUC
Sensitivity
Specificity
PPV
ResNet50 [ 8 ]
0.6013
0.4934
0.6798
0.5101
0.8496
0.5023
SwinTransform [ 17 ]
0.6720
0.5878
0.7339
0.5953
0.8725
0.6128
DINOv2_Large [ 22 ]
0.7138
0.6592
0.7694
0.6477
0.8911
0.6746
DINOv2 [ 22 ]
0.6945
0.5998
0.7448
0.6033
0.8863
0.6198
DINOv3 [ 25 ]
0.6881
0.6066
0.7467
0.6098
0.8837
0.6126
ViT [ 6 ]
0.6624
0.5543
0.7289
0.5839
0.8738
0.5707
Table 2: Performance evaluation of SOTA classification methods of MES scoring on 311 low-resolution test samples similar to the challenge leaderboard. Top two values are presented in bold. Results present, Top-1 Accuracy, F1-Score, AUC: Area Under Curve, Sensitivity, Specificity and PPV: positive predictive value
Model
MES-0
MES-1
MES-2
MES-3
SEN
SPE
PPV
SEN
SPE
PPV
SEN
SPE
PPV
SEN
SPE
PPV
ResNet50 [ 8 ]
0.667
0.913
0.500
0.313
0.858
0.364
0.211
0.933
0.414
0.851
0.694
0.732
SwinTransform [ 17 ]
0.806
0.942
0.644
0.375
0.955
0.686
0.298
0.886
0.370
0.903
0.707
0.751
DINOv2_Large [ 22 ]
0.722
0.975
0.788
0.547
0.915
0.625
0.439
0.898
0.490
0.883
0.777
0.795
DINOv2 [ 22 ]
0.667
0.960
0.686
0.609
0.854
0.520
0.228
0.941
0.464
0.909
0.790
0.809
DINOv3 [ 25 ]
0.750
0.949
0.659
0.453
0.915
0.580
0.333
0.894
0.413
0.903
0.777
0.799
Table 3: Performance evaluation of SOTA classification methods for each MES Category (MES-0, MES-1, MES-3 and MES-3) scoring on 311 low-resolution test samples. Top two values are presented in bold. Results present, SEN: Sensitivity, SPE: Specificity and PPV: positive predictive value
Model
Cosine Similarity
BLEU-1
BLEU-4
METEOR
ROUGE-1
ROUGE-L
BLIP-Base [ 13 ]
0.7590
0.7887
0.6573
0.8124
0.8338
0.8298
BLIP-Large [ 13 ]
0.7977
0.8210
0.6960
0.8435
0.8615
0.8574
Table 4: Performance evaluation of SOTA captioning methods on 311 low-resolution test samples.
Medical image benchmarks compare AI methods on curated clinical images, tasks, and evaluation protocols to measure accuracy, robustness, and clinical usefulness.
UCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, London, UK · Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK · Medtronic, London, UK +3