Risk Biomarker Assessment for Breast Cancer Progression: Replication Precision of Nuclear Morphometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear morphometry is a method for quantitative measurement of histopathologic changes in the appearance of stained cell nuclei. Numerous studies have indicated that these assessments may provide clinically relevant information related to the degree of progression and malignant potential of breast neoplasia. Nuclear features are derived from computerized analysis of digitized microscope images, and a quantitative Feulgen stain for DNA was used. Features analyzed included: (1) DNA content; (2) nuclear size and shape; and (3) texture features, describing spatial features of chromatin distribution. In this study replicated measurements are described on a series of 54 breast carcinoma specimens of differing pathologic grades. Duplicate measurements were performed using two serial sections, which were processed and analyzed separately. The value of a single feature measurement, the nuclear area profile, was shown to be the strongest indicator of progression. A quantitative nuclear grade was derived and shown to be strongly correlated with not only the pathologic nuclear grade, but also with tubule formation, mitotic grade, and with the overall histopathologic grade. Analysis of replication precision showed that the standard methods of the histopathology laboratory, if practiced in a uniform manner, are sufficient to ensure reproducibility of these assessments. We argue that nuclear morphometry provides a standardized and reproducible framework for quantitative pathologic assessments.
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 | 0.061 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".