Deep learning driven quantification of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) on a renal biopsy are strong indicators of disease chronicity and prognosis. Techniques that are typically used for IFTA grading remain manual, leading to variability among pathologists. Accurate IFTA estimation using computational techniques can reduce this variability and provide quantitative assessment by capturing the pathologic features. Using trichrome-stained whole slide images (WSIs) processed from human renal biopsies, we developed a deep learning (DL) framework that captured finer pathological structures at high resolution and overall context at the WSI-level to predict IFTA grade. WSIs (n=67) were obtained from The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC). Five nephropathologists independently reviewed them and provided fibrosis scores that were converted to IFTA grades: <=10% (None or minimal), 11-25% (Mild), 26-50% (Moderate), and >50% (Severe). The model was developed by associating the WSIs with the IFTA grade determined by majority voting (reference estimate). Model performance was evaluated on WSIs (n=28) obtained from the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP). There was good agreement on the IFTA grading between the pathologists and the reference estimate (Kappa=0.622±0.071). The accuracy of the DL model was 71.8±5.3% on OSUWMC and 65.0±4.2% on KPMP datasets, respectively. Identification of salient image regions by combining microscopic and WSI-level pathological features yielded visual representations that were consistent with the pathologist-based IFTA grading. Our approach to analyzing microscopic- and WSI-level changes in renal biopsies attempts to mimic the pathologist and provides a regional and contextual estimation of IFTA. Such methods can assist clinicopathologic diagnosis. Translational statement Pathologists rely on interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) to indicate chronicity in kidney biopsies and provide a prognostic indicator of renal survival. Although guidelines for evaluation of IFTA exist, there is variability in IFTA estimation among pathologists. In this work, digitized kidney biopsies were independently reviewed by five nephropathologists and majority voting on their ratings was used to determine the IFTA grade. Using this information, a deep learning model was developed that captured microscopic and holistic features on the digitized biopsies and accurately predicted the IFTA grade. The study illustrates that deep learning can be utilized effectively to perform IFTA grading, thus enhancing conventional clinicopathologic 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".