Banff Digital Pathology Working Group: Going digital in transplant pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Banff Digital Pathology Working Group (DPWG) was formed in the time leading up to and during the joint American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics/Banff Meeting, September 23-27, 2019, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At the meeting, the 14th Banff Conference, presentations directly and peripherally related to the topic of "digital pathology" were presented; and discussions before, during, and after the meeting have resulted in a list of issues to address for the DPWG. Included are practice standardization, integrative approaches for study classification, scoring of histologic parameters (eg, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and inflammation), algorithm classification, and precision diagnosis (eg, molecular pathways and therapeutics). Since the meeting, a survey with international participation of mostly pathologists (81%) was conducted, showing that whole slide imaging is available at the majority of centers (71%) but that artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning was only used in ≈12% of centers, with a wide variety of programs/algorithms employed. Digitalization is not just an end in itself. It also is a necessary precondition for AI and other approaches. Discussions at the meeting and the survey highlight the unmet need for a Banff DPWG and point the way toward future contributions that can be made.
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 | 0.051 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.035 |
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".