MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157093734 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88494-z

Overcoming the limitations of patch-based learning to detect cancer in whole slide images

2021· article· en· W3157093734 on OpenAlexafffund
Ozan Ciga, Tony Xu, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Shawna Noy, Fang‐I Lu, Anne L. Martel

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFalse positive paradoxArtificial intelligenceWorkflowContext (archaeology)Task (project management)False positives and false negativesBinary classificationTrue positive rateDeep learningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Sensitivity (control systems)Support vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole slide images (WSIs) pose unique challenges when training deep learning models. They are very large which makes it necessary to break each image down into smaller patches for analysis, image features have to be extracted at multiple scales in order to capture both detail and context, and extreme class imbalances may exist. Significant progress has been made in the analysis of these images, thanks largely due to the availability of public annotated datasets. We postulate, however, that even if a method scores well on a challenge task, this success may not translate to good performance in a more clinically relevant workflow. Many datasets consist of image patches which may suffer from data curation bias; other datasets are only labelled at the whole slide level and the lack of annotations across an image may mask erroneous local predictions so long as the final decision is correct. In this paper, we outline the differences between patch or slide-level classification versus methods that need to localize or segment cancer accurately across the whole slide, and we experimentally verify that best practices differ in both cases. We apply a binary cancer detection network on post neoadjuvant therapy breast cancer WSIs to find the tumor bed outlining the extent of cancer, a task which requires sensitivity and precision across the whole slide. We extensively study multiple design choices and their effects on the outcome, including architectures and augmentations. We propose a negative data sampling strategy, which drastically reduces the false positive rate (25% of false positives versus 62.5%) and improves each metric pertinent to our problem, with a 53% reduction in the error of tumor extent. Our results indicate classification performances of image patches versus WSIs are inversely related when the same negative data sampling strategy is used. Specifically, injection of negatives into training data for image patch classification degrades the performance, whereas the performance is improved for slide and pixel-level WSI classification tasks. Furthermore, we find applying extensive augmentations helps more in WSI-based tasks compared to patch-level image classification.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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