piNET–An Automated Proliferation Index Calculator Framework for Ki67 Breast Cancer Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a novel proliferation index (PI) calculator for Ki67 images called piNET is proposed. It is successfully tested on four datasets, from three scanners comprised of patches, tissue microarrays (TMAs) and whole slide images (WSI), representing a diverse multi-centre dataset for evaluating Ki67 quantification. Compared to state-of-the-art methods, piNET consistently performs the best over all datasets with an average PI difference of 5.603%, PI accuracy rate of 86% and correlation coefficient R = 0.927. The success of the system can be attributed to several innovations. Firstly, this tool is built based on deep learning, which can adapt to wide variability of medical images-and it was posed as a detection problem to mimic pathologists' workflow which improves accuracy and efficiency. Secondly, the system is trained purely on tumor cells, which reduces false positives from non-tumor cells without needing the usual pre-requisite tumor segmentation step for Ki67 quantification. Thirdly, the concept of learning background regions through weak supervision is introduced, by providing the system with ideal and non-ideal (artifact) patches that further reduces false positives. Lastly, a novel hotspot analysis is proposed to allow automated methods to score patches from WSI that contain "significant" activity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".