Ink Marker Segmentation in Histopathology Images Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the recent advancements in machine vision, digital pathology has gained significant attention. Histopathology images are distinctly rich in visual information. The tissue glass slide images are utilized for disease diagnosis. Researchers study many methods to process histopathology images and facilitate fast and reliable diagnosis; therefore, the availability of high-quality slides becomes paramount. The quality of the images can be negatively affected when the glass slides are ink-marked by pathologists to delineate regions of interest. As an example, in one of the largest public histopathology datasets, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), approximately $12\%$ of the digitized slides are affected by manual delineations through ink markings. To process these open-access slide images and other repositories for the design and validation of new methods, an algorithm to detect the marked regions of the images is essential to avoid confusing tissue pixels with ink-colored pixels for computer methods. In this study, we propose to segment the ink-marked areas of pathology patches through a deep network. A dataset from $79$ whole slide images with $4,305$ patches was created and different networks were trained. Finally, the results showed an FPN model with the EffiecentNet-B3 as the backbone was found to be the superior configuration with an F1 score of $94.53\%$.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".