A Digital Pathology Solution to Resolve the Tissue Floater Conundrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Pathologists may encounter extraneous pieces of tissue (tissue floaters) on glass slides because of specimen cross-contamination. Troubleshooting this problem, including performing molecular tests for tissue identification if available, is time consuming and often does not satisfactorily resolve the problem. OBJECTIVE.—: To demonstrate the feasibility of using an image search tool to resolve the tissue floater conundrum. DESIGN.—: A glass slide was produced containing 2 separate hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue floaters. This fabricated slide was digitized along with the 2 slides containing the original tumors used to create these floaters. These slides were then embedded into a dataset of 2325 whole slide images comprising a wide variety of H&E stained diagnostic entities. Digital slides were broken up into patches and the patch features converted into barcodes for indexing and easy retrieval. A deep learning-based image search tool was employed to extract features from patches via barcodes, hence enabling image matching to each tissue floater. RESULTS.—: There was a very high likelihood of finding a correct tumor match for the queried tissue floater when searching the digital database. Search results repeatedly yielded a correct match within the top 3 retrieved images. The retrieval accuracy improved when greater proportions of the floater were selected. The time to run a search was completed within several milliseconds. CONCLUSIONS.—: Using an image search tool offers pathologists an additional method to rapidly resolve the tissue floater conundrum, especially for those laboratories that have transitioned to going fully digital for primary diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".