MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922500934 · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_76_18

Ki67 Quantitative Interpretation: Insights using Image Analysis

2019· article· en· W2922500934 on OpenAlexaff
Zoya Volynskaya, Özgür Mete, Sara Pakbaz, Doaa Alghamdi, L. Sylvia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pathology Informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDigital pathologyDigital image analysisSample (material)Selection (genetic algorithm)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceData miningComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proliferation markers, especially Ki67, are increasingly important in diagnosis and prognosis. The best method for calculating Ki67 is still the subject of debate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated an image analysis tool for quantitative interpretation of Ki67 in neuroendocrine tumors and compared it to manual counts. We expanded a primary digital pathology platform to include the Leica Biosystems image analysis nuclear algorithm. Slides were digitized using a Leica Aperio AT2 Scanner and accessed through the Cerner CoPath LIS interfaced with Aperio eSlideManager through Aperio ImageScope. Selected regions of interest (ROIs) were manually defined and annotated to include tumor cells only; they were then analyzed with the algorithm and by four pathologists counting on printed images. After validation, the algorithm was used to examine the impact of the size and number of areas selected as ROIs. RESULTS: The algorithm provided reproducible results that were obtained within seconds, compared to up to 55 min of manual counting that varied between users. Benefits of image analysis identified by users included accuracy, time savings, and ease of viewing. Access to the algorithm allowed rapid comparisons of Ki67 counts in ROIs that varied in numbers of cells and selection of fields, the outputs demonstrated that the results vary around defined cutoffs that provide tumor grade depending on the number of cells and ROIs counted. CONCLUSIONS: Digital image analysis provides accurate and reproducible quantitative data faster than manual counts. However, access to this tool allows multiple analyses of a single sample to use variable numbers of cells and selection of variable ROIs that can alter the result in clinically significant ways. This study highlights the potential risk of hard cutoffs of continuous variables and indicates that standardization of number of cells and number of regions selected for analysis should be incorporated into guidelines for Ki67 calculations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pathology InformaticsSame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207