Integrated tumor identification and automated scoring minimizes pathologist involvement and provides new insights to key biomarkers in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital image analysis (DIA) is becoming central to the quantitative evaluation of tissue biomarkers for discovery, diagnosis and therapeutic selection for the delivery of precision medicine. In this study, automated DIA using a new purpose-built software platform (QuPath) is applied to a cohort of 293 breast cancer patients to score five biomarkers in tissue microarrays (TMAs): ER, PR, HER2, Ki67 and p53. This software is able to measure IHC expression following fully automated tumor recognition in the same immunohistochemical (IHC)-stained tissue section, as part of a rapid workflow to ensure objectivity and accelerate biomarker analysis. The digital scores produced by QuPath were compared with manual scores by a pathologist and shown to have a good level of concordance in all cases (Cohen's κ>0.6), and almost perfect agreement for the clinically relevant biomarkers ER, PR and HER2 (κ>0.86). To assess prognostic value, cutoff thresholds could be applied to both manual and automated scores using the QuPath software, and survival analysis performed for 5-year overall survival. DIA was shown to be capable of replicating the statistically significant stratification of patients achieved using manual scoring across all biomarkers (P<0.01, log-rank test). Furthermore, the image analysis scores were shown to consistently lead to statistical significance across a wide range of potential cutoff thresholds, indicating the robustness of the method, and identify sub-populations of cases exhibiting different expression patterns within the p53 and Ki67 data sets that warrant further investigation. These findings have demonstrated QuPath's suitability for fast, reproducible, high-throughput TMA analysis across a range of important biomarkers. This was achieved using our tumor recognition algorithms for IHC-stained sections, trained interactively without the need for any additional tumor recognition markers, for example, cytokeratin, to obtain greater insight into the relationship between biomarker expression and clinical outcome applicable to a range of cancer types.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".