MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digital Imaging in Pathology: Whole-Slide Imaging and Beyond

2011· review· en· W2111574404 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of Disease · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultispectral imageDigitizationDigital pathologyComputer scienceDynamic imagingFluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage processingPathologyDigital image processingMedicineFluorescenceImage (mathematics)OpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital imaging in pathology has undergone an exponential period of growth and expansion catalyzed by changes in imaging hardware and gains in computational processing. Today, digitization of entire glass slides at near the optical resolution limits of light can occur in 60 s. Whole slides can be imaged in fluorescence or by use of multispectral imaging systems. Computational algorithms have been developed for cytometric analysis of cells and proteins in subcellular locations by use of multiplexed antibody staining protocols. Digital imaging is unlocking the potential to integrate primary image features into high-dimensional genomic assays by moving microscopic analysis into the digital age. This review highlights the emerging field of digital pathology and explores the methods and analytic approaches being developed for the application and use of these methods in clinical care and research settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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