MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digital Imaging in Pathology: Whole-Slide Imaging and Beyond

2011· review· en· W2111574404 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Ghaznavi, Andrew Evans, Anant Madabhushi, Michael D. Feldman

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.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.008

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations463
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of DiseaseSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207