Toward a quantitative method for estimating tumour-stroma ratio in breast cancer using polarized light microscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tumour-stroma ratio (TSR) has been explored as a useful source of prognostic information in various cancers, including colorectal, breast, and gastric. Despite research showing potential prognostic utility, its uptake into the clinic has been limited, in part due to challenges associated with subjectivity, reproducibility, and quantification. We have recently proposed a simple, robust, and quantifiable high-contrast method of imaging intra- and peri-tumoural stroma based on polarized light microscopy. Here we report on its use to quantify TSR in human breast cancer using unstained slides from 40 patient samples of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Polarimetric results based on a stromal abundance metric correlated well with pathology designations, showing a statistically significant difference between high- and low-stroma samples as scored by two clinical pathologists. The described polarized light imaging methodology shows promise for use as a quantitative, automatic, and standardizable tool for quantifying TSR, potentially addressing some of the challenges associated with its current estimation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it