The utility of color normalization for <scp>AI</scp>‐based diagnosis of hematoxylin and eosin‐stained pathology images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The color variation of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissues has presented a challenge for applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital pathology. Many color normalization algorithms have been developed in recent years in order to reduce the color variation between H&E images. However, previous efforts in benchmarking these algorithms have produced conflicting results and none have sufficiently assessed the efficacy of the various color normalization methods for improving diagnostic performance of AI systems. In this study, we systematically investigated eight color normalization algorithms for AI-based classification of H&E-stained histopathology slides, in the context of using images both from one center and from multiple centers. Our results show that color normalization does not consistently improve classification performance when both training and testing data are from a single center. However, using four multi-center datasets of two cancer types (ovarian and pleural) and objective functions, we show that color normalization can significantly improve the classification accuracy of images from external datasets (ovarian cancer: 0.25 AUC increase, p = 1.6 e-05; pleural cancer: 0.21 AUC increase, p = 1.4 e-10). Furthermore, we introduce a novel augmentation strategy by mixing color-normalized images using three easily accessible algorithms that consistently improves the diagnosis of test images from external centers, even when the individual normalization methods had varied results. We anticipate our study to be a starting point for reliable use of color normalization to improve AI-based, digital pathology-empowered diagnosis of cancers sourced from multiple centers. © 2021 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".