MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data augmentation for histopathological images based on gaussian-laplacian pyramid blending

2020· article· en· W3091129043 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Tsham Mpinda Ataky, Jonathan de Matos, Alceu de Souza Britto, Luiz S. Oliveira, Alessandro L. Koerich

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyramid (geometry)Artificial intelligenceLaplace operatorGaussian processComputer scienceGaussianImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Process (computing)Function (biology)Gaussian functionLaplacian matrixClass (philosophy)Computer visionAlgorithmMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data imbalance is a major problem that affects several machine learning (ML) algorithms. Such a problem is troublesome because most of the ML algorithms attempt to optimize a loss function that does not take into account the data imbalance. Accordingly, the ML algorithm simply generates a trivial model that is biased toward predicting the most frequent class in the training data. In the case of histopathologic images (HIs), both low-level and high-level data augmentation (DA) techniques still present performance issues when applied in the presence of inter-patient variability; whence the model tends to learn color representations, which is related to the staining process. In this paper, we propose a novel approach capable of not only augmenting HI dataset but also distributing the inter-patient variability by means of image blending using the Gaussian-Laplacian pyramid. The proposed approach consists of finding the Gaussian pyramids of two images of different patients and finding the Laplacian pyramids thereof. Afterwards, the left-half side and the right-half side of different HIs are joined in each level of the Laplacian pyramid, and from the joint pyramids, the original image is reconstructed. This composition combines the stain variation of two patients, avoiding that color differences mislead the learning process. Experimental results on the BreakHis dataset have shown promising gains vis-à-vis the majority of DA techniques presented in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207