Compound computer vision workflow for efficient and automated immunohistochemical analysis of whole slide images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Immunohistochemistry (IHC) assessment of tissue is a central component of the modern pathology workflow, but quantification is challenged by subjective estimates by pathologists or manual steps in semi-automated digital tools. This study integrates various computer vision tools to develop a fully automated workflow for quantifying Ki-67, a standard IHC test used to assess cell proliferation on digital whole slide images (WSIs). Methods We create an automated nuclear segmentation strategy by deploying a Mask R-CNN classifier to recognise and count 3,3′-diaminobenzidine positive and negative nuclei. To further improve automation, we replaced manual selection of regions of interest (ROIs) by aligning Ki-67 WSIs with corresponding H&E-stained sections, using scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) and a conventional histomorphological convolutional neural networks to define tumour-rich areas for quantification. Results The Mask R-CNN was tested on 147 images generated from 34 brain tumour Ki-67 WSIs and showed a high concordance with aggregate pathologists’ estimates ( n = 3 assessors; y = 0.9712 x − 1.945 , r=0.9750). Concordance of each assessor’s Ki-67 estimates was higher when compared with the Mask R-CNN than between individual assessors (ravg=0.9322 vs 0.8703; p=0.0213). Coupling the Mask R-CNN with SIFT-CNN workflow demonstrated ROIs can be automatically chosen and partially sampled to improve automation and dramatically decrease computational time (average: 88.55–19.28 min; p<0.0001). Conclusions We show how innovations in computer vision can be serially compounded to automate and improve implementation in clinical workflows. Generalisation of this approach to other ancillary studies has significant implications for computational pathology.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.023 |
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".