Triaging Diagnostically Relevant Regions from Pathology Whole Slides of Breast Cancer: A Texture Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pathologists often look at whole slide images (WSIs) at low magnification to find potentially important regions and then zoom in to higher magnification to perform more sophisticated analysis of the tissue structures. Many automated methods of WSI analysis attempt to preprocess the down-sampled image in order to select salient regions which are then further analyzed by a more computationally intensive step at full magnification. Although it can greatly reduce processing times, this process may lead to small potentially important regions being overlooked at low magnification. We propose a texture analysis technique to ease the processing of H&E stained WSIs by triaging clinically important regions. METHOD: Image patches randomly selected from the whole tissue area were divided into smaller tiles and Gaussian-like texture filters were applied to them. Texture filter responses from each tile were combined together and statistical measures were derived from their histograms of responses. Bag of visual words pipeline was then employed to combine extracted features from tiles to form one histogram of words per every image patch. A support vector machine classifier was trained using the calculated histograms of words to be able to distinguish between clinically relevant and irrelevant patches. RESULT: Experimental analysis on 5151 image patches from 10 patient cases (65 tissue slides) indicated that our proposed texture technique out-performed two previously proposed colour and intensity based methods with an area under the ROC curve of 0.87. CONCLUSION: Texture features can be employed to triage clinically important areas within large WSIs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".