IHC Color Histograms for Unsupervised Ki67 Proliferation Index Calculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated image analysis tools for Ki67 breast cancer digital pathology images would have significant value if integrated into diagnostic pathology workflows. Such tools would reduce the workload of pathologists, while improving efficiency, and accuracy. Developing tools that are robust and reliable to multicentre data is challenging, however, differences in staining protocols, digitization equipment, staining compounds, and slide preparation can create variabilities in image quality and color across digital pathology datasets. In this work, a novel unsupervised color separation framework based on the IHC color histogram (IHCCH) is proposed for the robust analysis of Ki67 and hematoxylin stained images in multicentre datasets. An "overstaining" threshold is implemented to adjust for background overstaining, and an automated nuclei radius estimator is designed to improve nuclei detection. Proliferation index and F1 scores were compared between the proposed method and manually labeled ground truth data for 30 TMA cores that have ground truths for Ki67+ and Ki67- nuclei. The method accurately quantified the PI over the dataset, with an average proliferation index difference of 3.25%. To ensure the method generalizes to new, diverse datasets, 50 Ki67 TMAs from the Protein Atlas were used to test the validated approach. As the ground truth for this dataset is PI ranges, the automated result was compared to the PI range. The proposed method correctly classified 74 out of 80 TMA images, resulting in a 92.5% accuracy. In addition to these validations experiments, performance was compared to two color-deconvolution based methods, and to six machine learning classifiers. In all cases, the proposed work maintained more consistent (reproducible) results, and higher PI quantification accuracy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".