Influence of nuclei segmentation on breast cancer malignancy classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast Cancer is one of the most deadly cancers affecting middle-aged women. Accurate diagnosis and prognosis are crucial to reduce the high death rate. Nowadays there are numerous diagnostic tools for breast cancer diagnosis. In this paper we discuss a role of nuclear segmentation from fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) slides and its influence on malignancy classification. Classification of malignancy plays a very important role during the diagnosis process of breast cancer. Out of all cancer diagnostic tools, FNA slides provide the most valuable information about the cancer malignancy grade which helps to choose an appropriate treatment. This process involves assessing numerous nuclear features and therefore precise segmentation of nuclei is very important. In this work we compare three powerful segmentation approaches and test their impact on the classification of breast cancer malignancy. The studied approaches involve level set segmentation, fuzzy c-means segmentation and textural segmentation based on co-occurrence matrix. Segmented nuclei were used to extract nuclear features for malignancy classification. For classification purposes four different classifiers were trained and tested with previously extracted features. The compared classifiers are Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Self-Organizing Maps (SOM), Principal Component-based Neural Network (PCA) and Support Vector Machines (SVM). The presented results show that level set segmentation yields the best results over the three compared approaches and leads to a good feature extraction with a lowest average error rate of 6.51% over four different classifiers. The best performance was recorded for multilayer perceptron with an error rate of 3.07% using fuzzy c-means segmentation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".