Prediction using hierarchical data: Applications for automated detection of cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Papanicolaou smear has been successful in decreasing cervical cancer incidence in the developed world, there exist many challenges for implementation in the developing world. Quantitative cytology, a semi-automated method that quantifies cellular image features, is a promising screening test candidate. The nested structure of its data (measurements of multiple cells within a patient) provides challenges to the usual classification problem. Here we perform a comparative study of three main approaches for problems with this general data structure: a) extract patient-level features from the cell-level data; b) use a statistical model that accounts for the hierarchical data structure; and c) classify at the cellular level and use an ad hoc approach to classify at the patient level. We apply these methods to a dataset of 1,728 patients, with an average of 2,600 cells collected per patient and 133 features measured per cell, predicting whether a patient had a positive biopsy result. The best approach we found was to classify at the cellular level and count the number of cells that had a posterior probability greater than a threshold value, with estimated 61% sensitivity and 89% specificity on independent data. Recent statistical learning developments allowed us to achieve high accuracy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".