MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of automated TIL quantification in early-stage melanoma on accuracy of standard T staging using AJCC guidelines.

2020· article· en· W3032246744 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Moore, Isabel D. Friesner, Emanuelle M. Rizk, Megan H. Trager, Jülide Tok Çelebi, Jeani Rich, Ijeuru Chikeka, Tahsin Kurç, Jing Wang, Bethany R. Rohr, Eric M. Robinson, Larisa J. Geskin, Basil A. Horst, Kevin Gardner, George Niedt, Jane L. Messina, Tammy C. Ferringer, Joel Saltz, R. Vanguri, Yvonne M. Saenger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMelanoma Research Alliance
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesStage (stratigraphy)Cancer stagingCutoffAdjuvant therapyH&E stainInternal medicineCancerCohortOncologyNuclear medicineSurgeryArtificial intelligenceImmunotherapyImmunohistochemistryCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10076 Background: Patients diagnosed with early stage melanoma are at risk of recurrence and death. Adjuvant therapy decreases risk but incurs toxicity and expense. While tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) improve prognosis, studies have shown conflicting results due, at least in part, to inter-observer variability. Thus, TILs are not included in standard American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging. Here, we quantitatively analyze TILs in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) melanoma images using two machine learning algorithms. Methods: H&E images were evaluated by two methods for patients with resectable stage I-III melanoma from Columbia (N = 81) and validated using samples from Geisinger and Moffitt (N = 128). For both methods, H&E images were manually annotated using open source software, QuPath, to specify tumor regions. For Method A, images were divided into patches and, for each patch, a probability was generated to detect lymphocytes. Patches above a set threshold were considered to be “TIL positive”. Ratio of TIL positive patches to total patches was assessed for every image. For Method B, a classifier was manually trained in QuPath and then applied on each image to determine the ratio of the areas of all immune cells to all tumor cells as previously published. Cutoff values to define high and low risk groups were established based on a test set and then validated in an independent cohort. Results: Both methods distinguished patients with visceral recurrence from those without for the Columbia training set (Method A p = .0015, Method B p = .043). Using Method A, Kaplan-Meier curve at the selected cutoff also correlated significantly with disease specific survival (DSS) for Columbia (p = .022) and was validated in the Geisinger/Moffitt (p = .046) cohort. Cox analysis using Method A showed that TIL status predicted DSS in the validation set (p = .047) and added significantly to depth and ulceration (HR = 3.43, CI: 1.047-11.257, p = .042). Conclusions: Both open source machine learning algorithms find significantly higher TILs in patients who do not develop metastasis. Notably, Method A may add to standard predictors, such as depth and ulceration. These results demonstrate the promise of computational algorithms to enhance visual grading, and suggest that digital TIL evaluation may add to current AJCC staging. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→