Diagnosis of Liver Neoplasms by Computational and Statistical Image Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Distinguishing well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (WD-HCC), hepatocellular adenoma (HA) and non-neoplastic liver tissue (NNLT) solely on morphology is often challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of computational image analysis to distinguish WD-HCC, HA and NNLT. Methods: Seventy-seven cases comprising of WD-HCC (n = 26), HA (n = 23) and NNLT (n = 28) were retrieved and reviewed. A total of 485 hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) photomicrographs ( × 400, 0.09 µm 2 ) of WD-HCC (n = 183), HA (n = 173), NNLT (n = 129) and nine whole-slide scans (three of each diagnosis) were obtained, color deconvoluted and digitally transformed. Quantitative data including nuclear density, nuclear sphericity, nuclear perimeter, and nuclear eccentricity from each image were acquired. The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post hoc test, followed by unsupervised and supervised (Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID)) cluster analysis. Results: Unsupervised cluster analysis identified three well defined clusters of WD-HCC, HA and NNLT. Employing the four most discriminating nuclear features, supervised analysis was performed on a training set of 383 images, and validated on the remaining 102 test images. The analysis identified WD-HCC (sensitivity 100%, specificity 98%), HA (sensitivity 71%, specificity 85%) and NNLT (sensitivity 70%, specificity 86%). An analysis of whole-slide images identified WD-HCC with sensitivity and specificity of 100%. Conclusions: We have successfully demonstrated that computational image analysis of nuclear features can differentiate WD-HCC from non-malignant liver with high accuracy, and can be used to assist in the histopathological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterol Res. 2019;12(6):288-298 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1210
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".