MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125776321 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-81506-y

Deep learning predicts postsurgical recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma from digital histopathologic images

2021· article· en· W3125776321 on OpenAlexaff
Rikiya Yamashita, Jin Long, Atif Saleem, Daniel L. Rubin, Jeanne Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceHepatocellular carcinomaRisk stratificationH&E stainMetastasisCarcinomaRadiologySurgeryOncologyInternal medicineCancerImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recurrence risk stratification of patients undergoing primary surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an area of active investigation, and several staging systems have been proposed to optimize treatment strategies. However, as many as 70% of patients still experience tumor recurrence at 5 years post-surgery. We developed and validated a deep learning-based system (HCC-SurvNet) that provides risk scores for disease recurrence after primary resection, directly from hematoxylin and eosin-stained digital whole-slide images of formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded liver resections. Our model achieved concordance indices of 0.724 and 0.683 on the internal and external test cohorts, respectively, exceeding the performance of the standard Tumor-Node-Metastasis classification system. The model's risk score stratified patients into low- and high-risk subgroups with statistically significant differences in their survival distributions, and was an independent risk factor for post-surgical recurrence in both test cohorts. Our results suggest that deep learning-based models can provide recurrence risk scores which may augment current patient stratification methods and help refine the clinical management of patients undergoing primary surgical resection for HCC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations74
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207