Automated detection and quantification of breast cancer brain metastases in an animal model using democratized machine learning tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Advances in digital whole-slide imaging and machine learning (ML) provide new opportunities for automated examination and quantification of histopathological slides to support pathologists and biologists. However, implementation of ML tools often requires advanced skills in computer science that may not be immediately available in the traditional wet-lab environment. Here, we propose a simple and accessible workflow to automate detection and quantification of brain epithelial metastases on digitized histological slides. We leverage 100 Hematoxylin & Eosin (H&E)-stained whole slide images (WSIs) from 25 Balb/c mice with various level of brain metastatic tumor burden. A supervised training of the Trainable Weka Segmentation (TWS) from Fiji was achieved from annotated WSIs. Upon comparison with manually drawn regions, it is apparent that the algorithm learned to identify and segment cancer cell-specific nuclei and normal brain tissue. Our approach resulted in a robust and highly concordant correlation between automated metastases quantification of brain metastases and manual human assessment (R 2 = 0.8783; P < 0.0001). This simple approach is amenable to other similar analyses, including that of human tissues. Widespread adoption of these tools aims to democratize ML and improve precision in traditionally qualitative tasks in histopathology-based research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".