The Pan-Cytokeratin Staining Intensity and Fractal Computational Analysis of Breast Tumor Malignant Growth Patterns Prognosticate the Occurrence of Distant Metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved prognosis of breast cancer outcome could prolong patient survival by reliable identification of patients at high risk of metastasis occurrence to benefit from more aggressive treatments. Based on such clinical need, we prognostically evaluated the malignant cells in breast tumors as the obvious potential source of unexploited prognostic information. The patient group was homogeneous, without any systemic treatments or lymph node spread, with smaller tumor size (pT1/2) and a long follow-up. Epithelial cells were labeled with AE1/AE3 pan-cytokeratin antibody cocktail and comprehensively analyzed. Monofractal and multifractal analysis was applied for quantification of distribution, shape and texture of malignant cell clusters, while mean pixel intensity and total area were measures of the pan-cytokeratin immunostaining intensity. The results surprisingly indicate that simple binary images and monofractal analysis provided better prognostic information then greyscale images and multifractal analysis. The key findings were that shapes and distribution of malignant cell clusters (by binary fractal dimension; AUC=0.29), their contour shapes (by outline fractal dimension; AUC=0.31) and intensity of the pan-cytokeratin immunostaining (by mean pixel intensity; AUC=0.30) offered significant performance in metastasis risk prognostication. These results reveal a surprising association of the lower pan-cytokeratin staining intensity with the high metastasis risk. Another interesting result was that multivariate analysis could confirm the prognostic independence only for fractal and not for intensity features. The obtained results reveal several novel and unexpected findings highlighting the independent prognostic efficacy of malignant cell cluster distribution and contour shapes in breast tumors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".