Assessment of Digital Pathology Imaging Biomarkers Associated with Breast Cancer Histologic Grade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating histologic grade for breast cancer diagnosis is standard and associated with prognostic outcomes. Current challenges include the time required for manual microscopic evaluation and interobserver variability. This study proposes a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) pipeline for grading tumors using artificial intelligence. METHODS: There were 138 patients included in this retrospective study. Breast core biopsy slides were prepared using standard laboratory techniques, digitized, and pre-processed for analysis. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were developed to identify the regions of interest containing malignant cells and to segment tumor nuclei. Imaging-based features associated with spatial parameters were extracted from the segmented regions of interest (ROIs). Clinical datasets and pathologic biomarkers (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor 2) were collected from all study subjects. Pathologic, clinical, and imaging-based features were input into machine learning (ML) models to classify histologic grade, and model performances were tested against ground-truth labels at the patient-level. Classification performances were evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Multiparametric feature sets, containing both clinical and imaging-based features, demonstrated high classification performance. Using imaging-derived markers alone, the classification performance demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.745, while modeling these features with other pathologic biomarkers yielded an AUC of 0.836. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate an association between tumor nuclear spatial features and tumor grade. If further validated, these systems may be implemented into pathology CADs and can assist pathologists to expeditiously grade tumors at the time of diagnosis and to help guide clinical decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".