Semi-Supervised Segmentation of Renal Pathology: An Alternative to Manual Segmentation and Input to Deep Learning Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney biopsy interpretation is the gold standard for the diagnosis and prognosis for kidney disease. Pathognomonic diagnosis hinges on the correct assessment of different structures within a biopsy that is manually visualized and interpreted by a renal pathologist. This laborious undertaking has spurred attempts to automate the process, offloading the consumption of temporal resources. Segmentation of kidney structures, specifically, the glomeruli, tubules, and interstitium, is a precursory step for disease classification problems. Translating renal disease decision making into a deep learning model for diagnostic and prognostic classification also relies on adequate segmentation of structures within the kidney biopsy. This study showcases a semi-automated segmentation technique where the user defines starting points for glomeruli in kidney biopsy images of both healthy normal and diabetic kidney disease stained with Nile Red that are subsequently partitioned into four areas: background, glomeruli, tubules and interstitium. Five of 30 biopsies that were segmented using the semi-automated method were randomly selected and the regions of interest were compared to the manual segmentation of the same images. Dice Similarity Coefficients (DSC) between the methods showed excellent agreement; Healthy (glomeruli: 0.92, tubules: 0.86, intersititium: 0.78) and diabetic nephropathy: (glomeruli: 0.94, tubules: 0.80, intersititium: 0.80). To our knowledge this is the first semi-automated segmentation algorithm performed with human renal biopsies stained with Nile Red. Utility of this methodology includes further image processing within structures across disease states based on biological morphological structures. It can also be used as input into a deep learning network to train semantic segmentation and input into a deep learning algorithm for classification of disease states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".