Optimized quality of histologic images allows the use of neural network scanning in diagnosis of fungal infection of abnormal nails.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The neural network scanning (NNS) system, formerly known as Papnet, is capable of selecting fungi in cervical smears. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the optimized quality of histologic images created using a combination of coagulant fixation and microwave histoprocessing allows the application of this computer-assisted microscopy in the diagnostic process. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective study, 117 abnormal nails clinically suspect for fungal disease werefixed in a coagulant fixative, BoonFix, processed in a microwave histoprocessor to obtain optimal paraffin sections and stained with the periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) method. The stained paraffin sections were randomly numbered and screened by two independent pathologists for diagnosis of fungal hyphae and spores. The same sections were subsequently scanned by a neural network, and a maximum of 128 digital images produced by the system were screened and diagnosed by pathologists. Using light microscopy as the gold standard for diagnosis of fungi, the usefulness of NNS was then assessed. RESULTS: The fungi and spores were clearly demonstrated in the paraffin sections, and the NNS system detected and recorded them efficiently. The hyphae and spores could be identified in these pixilated images with relative ease. Of the 117 examined cases, 50 were positive and 47 negative by both methods. In the 20 remaining cases, NNS did not present images of fungi that were present in the histologic sections. In practice, this implies that only 67 out of 117 cases (57%) must be screened by light microscopy. NNS recorded not only fungi and spores in the 128 digital images but also artifacts, such as round, deeply PAS-positive granules of talcum powder, which by light microscopy might be mistaken for fungal spores. CONCLUSION: NNS proves applicable for the selection of spores and fungi if the histologic sections are of sufficiently high quality. As a result, the number of slides to be screened by light microscopy can be reduced substantially. In a throughput diagnostic laboratory handling a large number of such cases this technology can be highly valuable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".