Clustering Analysis for Semi-supervised Learning Improves Classification Performance of Digital Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Completely labeled datasets of pathology slides are often difficult and time consuming to obtain. Semi-supervised learning methods are able to learn reliable models from small number of labeled instances and large quantities of unlabeled data. In this paper, we explored the potential of clustering analysis for semi-supervised support vector machine (SVM) classifier. Method: A clustering analysis method was proposed to find regions of high density prior to finding the decision boundary using a supervised SVM and was compared with another state-of-the-art semi-supervised technique. Different percentages of labeled instances were used to train supervised and semi-supervised SVM learners from an image dataset generated from 50 whole-mount images (8 patients) of breast specimen. Their cross-validated classification performances were compared with each other using the area under the ROC curve measure. Result: Our proposed clustering analysis for semi-supervised learning was able to produce a reliable classification model from small amounts of labeled data. Comparing the proposed method in this study with a well-known implementation of semi-supervised SVM, our method performed much faster and produced better results.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".