Combined Mass Spectrometry and Histopathology Imaging for Perioperative Tissue Assessment in Cancer Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry is an effective imaging tool for evaluating biological tissue to detect cancer. With the assistance of deep learning, this technology can be used as a perioperative tissue assessment tool that will facilitate informed surgical decisions. To achieve such a system requires the development of a database of mass spectrometry signals and their corresponding pathology labels. Assigning correct labels, in turn, necessitates precise spatial registration of histopathology and mass spectrometry data. This is a challenging task due to the domain differences and noisy nature of images. In this study, we create a registration framework for mass spectrometry and pathology images as a contribution to the development of perioperative tissue assessment. In doing so, we explore two opportunities in deep learning for medical image registration, namely, unsupervised, multi-modal deformable image registration and evaluation of the registration. We test this system on prostate needle biopsy cores that were imaged with desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (DESI) and show that we can successfully register DESI and histology images to achieve accurate alignment and, consequently, labelling for future training. This automation is expected to improve the efficiency and development of a deep learning architecture that will benefit the use of mass spectrometry imaging for cancer diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".