MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302554869 · doi:10.1117/12.2216817

Non-uniform object counting method in large-format pyramid images applied to CD31 vessel counting in whole-mount digital pathology sections

2016· article· en· W2302554869 on OpenAlexaff
Mayan Murray, Melissa L. Hill, Kela Liu, James G. Mainprize, Martin J. Yaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Computer scienceMountThresholdingComputer visionImage processingArtificial intelligenceSegmentationMathematical morphologyComputer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)MathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-mount pathology imaging has the potential to revolutionize clinical practice by preserving context lost when tissue is cut to fit onto conventional slides. Whole-mount digital images are very large, ranging from 4GB to greater than 50GB, making concurrent processing infeasible. Block-processing is a method commonly used to divide the image into smaller blocks and process them individually. This approach is useful for certain tasks, but leads to over-counting objects located on the seams between blocks. This issue is exaggerated as the block size decreases. In this work we apply a novel technique to enumerate vessels, a clinical task that would benefit from automation in whole-mount images. Whole-mount sections of rabbit VX2 tumors were digitized. Color thresholding was used to segment the brown CD31- DAB stained vessels. This vessel enumeration was applied to the entire whole-mount image in two distinct phases of block-processing. The first (whole-processing) phase used a basic grid and only counted objects that did not intersect the block’s borders. The second (seam-processing) phase used a shifted grid to ensure all blocks captured the block-seam regions from the original grid. Only objects touching this seam-intersection were counted. For validation, segmented vessels were randomly embedded into a whole-mount image. The technique was tested on the image using 24 different block-widths. Results indicated that the error reaches a minimum at a block-width equal to the maximum vessel length, with no improvement as the block-width increases further. Object-density maps showed very good correlation between the vessel-dense regions and the pathologist outlined tumor regions.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207