Histologic tissue components provide major cues for machine learning-based prostate cancer detection and grading on prostatectomy specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically detecting and grading cancerous regions on radical prostatectomy (RP) sections facilitates graphical and quantitative pathology reporting, potentially benefitting post-surgery prognosis, recurrence prediction, and treatment planning after RP. Promising results for detecting and grading prostate cancer on digital histopathology images have been reported using machine learning techniques. However, the importance and applicability of those methods have not been fully investigated. We computed three-class tissue component maps (TCMs) from the images, where each pixel was labeled as nuclei, lumina, or other. We applied seven different machine learning approaches: three non-deep learning classifiers with features extracted from TCMs, and four deep learning, using transfer learning with the 1) TCMs, 2) nuclei maps, 3) lumina maps, and 4) raw images for cancer detection and grading on whole-mount RP tissue sections. We performed leave-one-patient-out cross-validation against expert annotations using 286 whole-slide images from 68 patients. For both cancer detection and grading, transfer learning using TCMs performed best. Transfer learning using nuclei maps yielded slightly inferior overall performance, but the best performance for classifying higher-grade cancer. This suggests that 3-class TCMs provide the major cues for cancer detection and grading primarily using nucleus features, which are the most important information for identifying higher-grade cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".