Automating three-dimensional osteoarthritis histopathological grading of human osteochondral tissue using machine learning on contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a machine learning (ML) approach for automatic three-dimensional (3D) histopathological grading of osteochondral samples imaged with contrast-enhanced micro-computed tomography (CEμCT). DESIGN: A total of 79 osteochondral cores from 24 total knee arthroplasty patients and two asymptomatic donors were imaged using CEμCT with phosphotungstic acid -staining. Volumes-of-interest (VOI) in surface (SZ), deep (DZ) and calcified (CZ) zones were extracted depth-wise and subjected to dimensionally reduced Local Binary Pattern -textural feature analysis. Regularized linear and logistic regression (LR) models were trained zone-wise against the manually assessed semi-quantitative histopathological CEμCT grades (diameter = 2 mm samples). Models were validated using nested leave-one-out cross-validation and an independent test set (4 mm samples). The performance was primarily assessed using Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Average Precision (AP, confidence intervals are given in square brackets). RESULTS: Highest performance on cross-validation was observed for SZ, both on linear regression (MSE = 0.49, 0.69 and 0.71 for SZ, DZ and CZ, respectively) and LR (AP = 0.9 [0.77-0.99], 0.46 [0.28-0.67] and 0.65 [0.41-0.85] for SZ, DZ and CZ, respectively). The test set evaluations yielded increased MSE on all zones. For LR, the performance was also best for the SZ (AP = 0.85 [0.73-0.93], 0.82 [0.70-0.92] and 0.8 [0.67-0.9], for SZ, DZ and CZ, respectively). CONCLUSION: We present the first ML-based automatic 3D histopathological osteoarthritis (OA) grading method which also adequately perform on grading unseen data, especially in SZ. After further development, the method could potentially be applied by OA researchers since the grading software and all source codes are publicly available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".