MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184297834 · doi:10.1002/jsp2.1164

Development of a standardized histopathology scoring system using machine learning algorithms for intervertebral disc degeneration in the mouse model—An <scp>ORS</scp> spine section initiative

2021· article· en· W3184297834 on OpenAlex
Itzel Paola Melgoza, Srish S. Chenna, Steven Tessier, Yejia Zhang, Simon Y. Tang, Takashi Ohnishi, Emanuel J. Novais, Geoffrey J. Kerr, Sarthak Mohanty, Vivian Tam, Wilson Chan, Chaoming Zhou, Ying Zhang, Vyl Leung, Angela K. Brice, Cheryle A. Séguin, Danny Chan, Nam Vo, Makarand V. Risbud, Chitra Lekha Dahia

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJOR Spine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNIH Office of the DirectorNational Institutes of HealthStarr Foundation
KeywordsHistopathologySection (typography)Intervertebral discDegeneration (medical)AlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicinePathologyAnatomyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mice have been increasingly used as preclinical model to elucidate mechanisms and test therapeutics for treating intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). Several intervertebral disc (IVD) histological scoring systems have been proposed, but none exists that reliably quantitate mouse disc pathologies. Here, we report a new robust quantitative mouse IVD histopathological scoring system developed by building consensus from the spine community analyses of previous scoring systems and features noted on different mouse models of IDD. The new scoring system analyzes 14 key histopathological features from nucleus pulposus (NP), annulus fibrosus (AF), endplate (EP), and AF/NP/EP interface regions. Each feature is categorized and scored; hence, the weight for quantifying the disc histopathology is equally distributed and not driven by only a few features. We tested the new histopathological scoring criteria using images of lumbar and coccygeal discs from different IDD models of both sexes, including genetic, needle‐punctured, static compressive models, and natural aging mice spanning neonatal to old age stages. Moreover, disc sections from common histological preparation techniques and stains including H&amp;E, SafraninO/Fast green, and FAST were analyzed to enable better cross‐study comparisons. Fleiss's multi‐rater agreement test shows significant agreement by both experienced and novice multiple raters for all 14 features on several mouse models and sections prepared using various histological techniques. The sensitivity and specificity of the new scoring system was validated using artificial intelligence and supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms, including artificial neural networks, k ‐means clustering, and principal component analysis. Finally, we applied the new scoring system on established disc degeneration models and demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of histopathological scoring changes. Overall, the new histopathological scoring system offers the ability to quantify histological changes in mouse models of disc degeneration and regeneration with high sensitivity and specificity.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.255 · 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