MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343327095 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2015.2503720

Circular Mixture Modeling of Color Distribution for Blind Stain Separation in Pathology Images

2015· article· en· W2343327095 on OpenAlexaff
Xingyu Li, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainArtificial intelligenceHuePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceMatrix decompositionPixelNon-negative matrix factorizationSegmentationCluster analysisComputer visionMathematicsPathologyStainingEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In digital pathology, to address color variation and histological component colocalization in pathology images, stain decomposition is usually performed preceding spectral normalization and tissue component segmentation. This paper examines the problem of stain decomposition, which is a naturally nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) problem in algebra, and introduces a systematical and analytical solution consisting of a circular color analysis module and an NMF-based computation module. Unlike the paradigm of existing stain decomposition algorithms where stain proportions are computed from estimated stain spectra using a matrix inverse operation directly, the introduced solution estimates stain spectra and stain depths via probabilistic reasoning individually. Since the proposed method pays extra attentions to achromatic pixels in color analysis and stain co-occurrence in pixel clustering, it achieves consistent and reliable stain decomposition with minimum decomposition residue. Particularly, aware of the periodic and angular nature of hue, we propose the use of a circular von Mises mixture model to analyze the hue distribution, and provide a complete color-based pixel soft-clustering solution to address color mixing introduced by stain overlap. This innovation combined with saturation-weighted computation makes our study effective for weak stains and broad-spectrum stains. Extensive experimentation on multiple public pathology datasets suggests that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art blind stain separation methods in terms of decomposition effectiveness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207