Fractal analysis for assessing tumour grade in microscopic images of breast tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, breast cancer is expected to continue as the leading form of cancer diagnosed in women, and the second leading cause of cancer mortality in this group. A method that has proven useful for guiding the choice of treatment strategy is the assessment of histological tumor grade. The grading is based upon the mitosis count, nuclear pleomorphism, and tubular formation, and is known to be subject to inter-observer variability. Since cancer grade is one of the most significant predictors of prognosis, errors in grading can affect patient management and outcome. Hence, there is a need to develop a breast cancer-grading tool that is minimally operator dependent to reduce variability associated with the current grading system, and thereby reduce uncertainty that may impact patient outcome. In this work, we explored the potential of a computer-based approach using fractal analysis as a quantitative measure of cancer grade for breast specimens. More specifically, we developed and optimized computational tools to compute the fractal dimension of low- versus high-grade breast sections and found them to be significantly different, 1.3±0.10 versus 1.49±0.10, respectively (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, p<0.001). These results indicate that fractal dimension (a measure of morphologic complexity) may be a useful tool for demarcating low- versus high-grade cancer specimens, and has potential as an objective measure of breast cancer grade. Such prognostic value could provide more sensitive and specific information that would reduce inter-observer variability by aiding the pathologist in grading cancers.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".