Color model comparative analysis for breast cancer diagnosis using H and E stained images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital cancer diagnosis is a research realm where signal processing techniques are used to analyze and to classify color histopathology images. Different from grayscale image analysis of magnetic resonance imaging or X-ray, colors in histopathology images convey large amount of histological information and thus play significant role in cancer diagnosis. Though color information is widely used in histopathology works, as today, there is few study on color model selections for feature extraction in cancer diagnosis schemes. This paper addresses the problem of color space selection for digital cancer classification using H and E stained images, and investigates the effectiveness of various color models (RGB, HSV, CIE L*a*b*, and stain-dependent H and E decomposition model) in breast cancer diagnosis. Particularly, we build a diagnosis framework as a comparison benchmark and take specific concerns of medical decision systems into account in evaluation. The evaluation methodologies include feature discriminate power evaluation and final diagnosis performance comparison. Experimentation on a publicly accessible histopathology image set suggests that the H and E decomposition model outperforms other assessed color spaces. For reasons behind various performance of color spaces, our analysis via mutual information estimation demonstrates that color components in the H and E model are less dependent, and thus most feature discriminate power is collected in one channel instead of spreading out among channels in other color spaces.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".