MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119215451 · doi:10.1101/2021.01.03.21249179

Deep learning driven quantification of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies

2021· preprint· en· W3119215451 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Zheng, Clarissa A. Cassol, Divya Veerapaneni, Vipul C. Chitalia, Kevin Ren, Shubha S. Bellur, Peter Boor, Laura Barisoni, Sushrut S. Waikar, Margrit Betke, Vijaya B. Kolachalama

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesClinical and Translational Science Institute, Boston UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAmerican Heart AssociationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGrading (engineering)MedicineFibrosisBiopsyKidney diseasePathologyPathologicalArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207