A review and comparison of breast tumor cell nuclei segmentation performances using deep convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is currently the second most common cause of cancer-related death in women. Presently, the clinical benchmark in cancer diagnosis is tissue biopsy examination. However, the manual process of histopathological analysis is laborious, time-consuming, and limited by the quality of the specimen and the experience of the pathologist. This study's objective was to determine if deep convolutional neural networks can be trained, with transfer learning, on a set of histopathological images independent of breast tissue to segment tumor nuclei of the breast. Various deep convolutional neural networks were evaluated for the study, including U-Net, Mask R-CNN, and a novel network (GB U-Net). The networks were trained on a set of Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E)-stained images of eight diverse types of tissues. GB U-Net demonstrated superior performance in segmenting sites of invasive diseases (AJI = 0.53, mAP = 0.39 & AJI = 0.54, mAP = 0.38), validated on two hold-out datasets exclusively containing breast tissue images of approximately 7,582 annotated cells. The results of the networks, trained on images independent of breast tissue, demonstrated that tumor nuclei of the breast could be accurately segmented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".