MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083125248 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2013.2277837

Toward Automatic Mitotic Cell Detection and Segmentation in Multispectral Histopathological Images

2013· article· en· W2083125248 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng Lu, Mrinal Mandal

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMultispectral imageComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationDiscriminative modelLinear discriminant analysisFeature extractionComputer visionImage segmentationMitosisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The count of mitotic cells is a critical factor in most cancer grading systems. Extracting the mitotic cell from the histopathological image is a very challenging task. In this paper, we propose an efficient technique for detecting and segmenting the mitotic cells in the high-resolution multispectral image. The proposed technique consists of three main modules: discriminative image generation, mitotic cell candidate detection and segmentation, and mitotic cell candidate classification. In the first module, a discriminative image is obtained by linear discriminant analysis using ten different spectral band images. A set of mitotic cell candidate regions is then detected and segmented by the Bayesian modeling and local-region threshold method. In the third module, a 226 dimension feature is extracted from the mitotic cell candidates and their surrounding regions. An imbalanced classification framework is then applied to perform the classification for the mitotic cell candidates in order to detect the real mitotic cells. The proposed technique has been evaluated on a publicly available dataset of 35 × 10 multispectral images, in which 224 mitotic cells are manually labeled by experts. The proposed technique is able to provide superior performance compared to the existing technique, 81.5% sensitivity rate and 33.9% precision rate in terms of detection performance, and 89.3% sensitivity rate and 87.5% precision rate in terms of segmentation performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207