Segmentation and Grade Prediction of Colon Cancer Digital Pathology Images Across Multiple Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishing benign from malignant disease is a primary challenge for colon histopathologists. Current clinical methods rely on qualitative visual analysis of features such as glandular architecture and size that exist on a continuum from benign to malignant. Consequently, discordance between histopathologists is common. To provide more reliable analysis of colon specimens, we propose an end-to-end computational pathology pipeline that encompasses gland segmentation, cancer detection, and then further breaking down the malignant samples into different cancer grades. We propose a multi-step gland segmentation method, which models tissue components as ellipsoids. For cancer detection/grading, we encode cellular morphology, spatial architectural patterns of glands, and texture by extracting multi-scale features: (i) Gland-based: extracted from individual glands, (ii) local-patch-based: computed from randomly-selected image patches, and (iii) image-based: extracted from images, and employ a hierarchical ensemble-classification method. Using two datasets (Rawalpindi Medical College (RMC), n = 174 and gland segmentation (GlaS), n = 165) with three cancer grades, our method reliably delineated gland regions (RMC = 87.5%, GlaS = 88.4%), detected the presence of malignancy (RMC = 97.6%, GlaS = 98.3%), and predicted tumor grade (RMC = 98.6%, GlaS = 98.6%). Training the model using one dataset and testing it on the other showed strong concordance in cancer detection (Train RMC – Test GlaS = 94.5%, Train GlaS – Test RMC = 93.7%) and grading (Train RMC – Test GlaS = 95%, Train GlaS – Test RMC = 95%) suggesting that the model will be applicable across institutions. With further prospective validation, the techniques demonstrated here may provide a reproducible and easily accessible method to standardize analysis of colon cancer specimens.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".