Comparison of digital image analysis and visual scoring of KI-67 in prostate cancer prognosis after prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The tumor proliferative index marker Ki-67 was shown to be associated with clinically significant outcomes in prostate cancer, but its clinical application has limitations due to lack of uniformity and consistency in quantification. Our objective was to compare the measurements obtained with digital image analysis (DIA) versus virtual microscopy (visual scoring (VS)). METHODS: To do so, we compared the measurement distributions of each technique and their ability to predict clinically useful endpoints. A tissue microarray series from a cohort of 225 men who underwent radical prostatectomy was immunostained for Ki-67. The percentage of Ki-67 positive nuclei in malignant cells was assessed both by VS and DIA, and a H-score was calculated. The distribution and predictive ability of these scoring methods to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) and death from prostate cancer (DPCa) were compared using Mann-Whitney test and C-index. RESULTS: The measurements obtained with VS were similar to the DIA measurements (p = 0.73) but dissimilar to the H-score (p < 0.001). Cox regression models showed that Ki-67 was associated with BCR (HR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.10-1.94) and DPCa (HR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.06-1.50). C-indexes revealed that Ki-67 was a better predictor of DPCa (0.803, 0.8059 and 0.789; VS, DIA and H-score, respectively) than of BCR (0.625, 0.632 and 0.604; VS, DIA and H-score, respectively). CONCLUSION: The measurement distributions and the predictive abilities of VS and DIA were similar and presented the same predictive behaviour in our cohort, supporting the role of Ki-67 proliferative index as an important prognostic factor of BCR and DPCa in prostate cancer post RP. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/6656878501536663.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".