Automating Three-dimensional Osteoarthritis Histopathological Grading of Human Osteochondral Tissue using Machine Learning on Contrast-Enhanced Micro-Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To develop and validate a machine learning (ML) approach for automatic three-dimensional (3D) histopathological grading of osteochondral samples imaged with contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography (CEμCT). Design Osteochondral cores from 24 total knee arthroplasty patients and 2 asymptomatic cadavers (n = 34, Ø = 2 mm; n = 45, Ø = 4 mm) were imaged using CEμCT with phosphotungstic acid-staining. Volumes-of-interest (VOI) in surface (SZ), deep (DZ) and calcified (CZ) zones were extracted depthwise and subjected to dimensionally reduced Local Binary Pattern-textural feature analysis. Regularized Ridge and Logistic regression (LR) models were trained zone-wise against the manually assessed semi-quantitative histopathological CEμCT grades (Ø = 2 mm samples). Models were validated using nested leave-one-out cross-validation and an independent test set (Ø = 4 mm samples). The performance was assessed using Spearman’s correlation, Average Precision (AP) and Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC). Results Highest performance on cross-validation was observed for SZ, both on Ridge regression (ρ = 0.68, p < 0.0001) and LR (AP = 0.89, AUC = 0.92). The test set evaluations yielded decreased Spearman’s correlations on all zones. For LR, performance was almost similar in SZ (AP = 0.89, AUC = 0.86), decreased in CZ (AP = 0.71→0.62, AUC = 0.77→0.63) and increased in DZ (AP = 0.50→0.83, AUC = 0.72→0.72). Conclusion We showed that the ML-based automatic 3D histopathological grading of osteochondral samples is feasible from CEμCT. The developed method can be directly applied by OA researchers since the grading software and all source codes are publicly available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".