Breast Cancer Multi-classification from Histopathological Images with Structured Deep Learning Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated breast cancer multi-classification from histopathological images plays a key role in computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis or prognosis. Breast cancer multi-classification is to identify subordinate classes of breast cancer (Ductal carcinoma, Fibroadenoma, Lobular carcinoma, etc.). However, breast cancer multi-classification from histopathological images faces two main challenges from: (1) the great difficulties in breast cancer multi-classification methods contrasting with the classification of binary classes (benign and malignant), and (2) the subtle differences in multiple classes due to the broad variability of high-resolution image appearances, high coherency of cancerous cells, and extensive inhomogeneity of color distribution. Therefore, automated breast cancer multi-classification from histopathological images is of great clinical significance yet has never been explored. Existing works in literature only focus on the binary classification but do not support further breast cancer quantitative assessment. In this study, we propose a breast cancer multi-classification method using a newly proposed deep learning model. The structured deep learning model has achieved remarkable performance (average 93.2% accuracy) on a large-scale dataset, which demonstrates the strength of our method in providing an efficient tool for breast cancer multi-classification in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".