Quantitative Image Analysis of Cellular Heterogeneity in Breast Tumors Complements Genomic Profiling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid tumors are heterogeneous tissues composed of a mixture of cancer and normal cells, which complicates the interpretation of their molecular profiles. Furthermore, tissue architecture is generally not reflected in molecular assays, rendering this rich information underused. To address these challenges, we developed a computational approach based on standard hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections and demonstrated its power in a discovery and validation cohort of 323 and 241 breast tumors, respectively. To deconvolute cellular heterogeneity and detect subtle genomic aberrations, we introduced an algorithm based on tumor cellularity to increase the comparability of copy number profiles between samples. We next devised a predictor for survival in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer that integrated both image-based and gene expression analyses and significantly outperformed classifiers that use single data types, such as microarray expression signatures. Image processing also allowed us to describe and validate an independent prognostic factor based on quantitative analysis of spatial patterns between stromal cells, which are not detectable by molecular assays. Our quantitative, image-based method could benefit any large-scale cancer study by refining and complementing molecular assays of tumor samples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it