3D Pathology Volumetric Technique: A Method for Calculating Breast Tumour Volume from Whole-Mount Serial Section Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumour size, most commonly measured by maximum linear extent, remains a strong predictor of survival in breast cancer. Tumour volume, proportional to the number of tumour cells, may be a more accurate surrogate for size. We describe a novel "3D pathology volumetric technique" for lumpectomies and compare it with 2D measurements. Volume renderings and total tumour volume are computed from digitized whole-mount serial sections using custom software tools. Results are presented for two lumpectomy specimens selected for tumour features which may challenge accurate measurement of tumour burden with conventional, sampling-based pathology: (1) an infiltrative pattern admixed with normal breast elements; (2) a localized invasive mass separated from the in situ component by benign tissue. Spatial relationships between key features (tumour foci, close or involved margins) are clearly visualized in volume renderings. Invasive tumour burden can be underestimated using conventional pathology, compared to the volumetric technique (infiltrative pattern: 30% underestimation; localized mass: 3% underestimation for invasive tumour, 44% for in situ component). Tumour volume approximated from 2D measurements (i.e., maximum linear extent), assuming elliptical geometry, was seen to overestimate volume compared to the 3D volumetric calculation (by a factor of 7x for the infiltrative pattern; 1.5x for the localized invasive mass).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".