Development and evaluation of a robust algorithm for computer-assisted detection of sentinel lymph node micrometastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Increasing the sectioning rate for breast sentinel lymph nodes can increase the likelihood of detecting micrometastases. To make serial sectioning feasible, we have developed an algorithm for computer-assisted detection (CAD) with digitized lymph node sections. METHODS AND RESULTS: K-means clustering assigned image pixels to one of four areas in a colourspace (representing tumour, unstained background, counterstained background and microtomy artefacts). Four filters then removed 'false-positive' pixels from the tumour cluster. A set of 43 sections containing tumour (a total of 259 foci) and 59 sections negative for malignancy was defined by two pathologists, using light microscopy, and CAD was applied. For the clinically relevant task of identifying the largest focus in each section (micrometastasis in 22/43 sections), the sensitivity and specificity were 100%. Isolated tumour cells (ITCs) were identified in one slide initially considered to be negative. Identification of all 259 foci yielded sensitivities of 57.5% for ITCs (<0.200 mm), 89.5% for micrometastases, and 100% for larger metastases, with one false-positive. Reduced sensitivity was ascribed to variable staining. Nine additional metastases (<0.01-0.3 mm) that were not initially identified were detected by CAD. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm is well suited to the task of sentinel lymph node evaluation and may enhance the detection of occult micrometastases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".