Computerized image analysis of the Ki‐67 proliferation index in mantle cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Manual counting of the fraction of Ki-67-positive cells (the Ki-67 index) in 1000 tumour cells is considered the 'gold standard' to predict prognosis in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This time-consuming method is replaced by the faster, but less accurate, semiquantitative estimation in routine practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of computerized image analysis software for scoring of Ki-67 in MCL. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed an automated method for determining the Ki-67 index by computerized image analysis and tested it using a cohort of 62 MCL patients. The data were compared to Ki-67 scores obtained by semiquantitative estimation and image-based manual counting. When using the Ki-67 index as a continuous parameter, both image-based manual counting and computerized image analysis were related inversely to survival (P = 0.020 and P = 0.025, respectively). Ki-67 index obtained by semiquantitative estimation was not associated significantly with survival (P = 0.093). The results were validated in a second patient cohort with similar results. CONCLUSION: Computerized image analysis of the Ki-67 index in MCL is an attractive alternative to semiquantitative estimation and can be introduced easily in a routine diagnostic setting for risk stratification in MCL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".