A Comparative Study of U-Net Topologies for Background Removal in Histopathology Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last decade, the digitization of pathology has gained considerable momentum. Digital pathology offers many advantages including more efficient workflows, easier collaboration as well as a powerful venue for telepathology. At the same time, applying Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) on Whole Slide Images (WSIs) has received substantial attention as a direct result of the digitization. The first step in any image analysis is to extract the tissue. Hence, background removal is an essential prerequisite for efficient and accurate results for many algorithms. In spite of the obvious discrimination for human operator, the identification of tissue regions in WSIs could be challenging for computers mainly due to the existence of color variations and artifacts. Moreover, some cases such as alveolar tissue types, fatty tissues, and tissues with poor staining are difficult to detect. In this paper, we perform experiments on U-Net architecture with different network backbones (different topologies) to remove the background as well as artifacts from WSIs in order to extract the tissue regions. We compare a wide range of backbone networks including MobileNet, VGG16, EfficientNet-B3, ResNet50, ResNext101 and DenseNet121. We trained and evaluated the network on a manually labeled subset of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Dataset. EfficientNet-B3 and MobileNet by almost 99% sensitivity and specificity reached the best results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".