Integrating morphologic and molecular histopathological features through whole slide image registration and deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern molecular pathology workflows in neuro-oncology heavily rely on the integration of morphologic and immunohistochemical patterns for analysis, classification, and prognostication. However, despite the recent emergence of digital pathology platforms and artificial intelligence-driven computational image analysis tools, automating the integration of histomorphologic information found across these multiple studies is challenged by large files sizes of whole slide images (WSIs) and shifts/rotations in tissue sections introduced during slide preparation. METHODS: To address this, we develop a workflow that couples different computer vision tools including scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) and deep learning to efficiently align and integrate histopathological information found across multiple independent studies. We highlight the utility and automation potential of this workflow in the molecular subclassification and discovery of previously unappreciated spatial patterns in diffuse gliomas. RESULTS: First, we show how a SIFT-driven computer vision workflow was effective at automated WSI alignment in a cohort of 107 randomly selected surgical neuropathology cases (97/107 (91%) showing appropriate matches, AUC = 0.96). This alignment allows our AI-driven diagnostic workflow to not only differentiate different brain tumor types, but also integrate and carry out molecular subclassification of diffuse gliomas using relevant immunohistochemical biomarkers (IDH1-R132H, ATRX). To highlight the discovery potential of this workflow, we also examined spatial distributions of tumors showing heterogenous expression of the proliferation marker MIB1 and Olig2. This analysis helped uncover an interesting and unappreciated association of Olig2 positive and proliferative areas in some gliomas (r = 0.62). CONCLUSION: This efficient neuropathologist-inspired workflow provides a generalizable approach to help automate a variety of advanced immunohistochemically compatible diagnostic and discovery exercises in surgical neuropathology and neuro-oncology.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".