MiNuGAN: Dual Segmentation of Mitoses and Nuclei Using Conditional GANs on Multi-center Breast H&E Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed type of cancer among women as of 2021. Grading of histopathological images is used to guide breast cancer treatment decisions and a critical component of this is a mitotic score, which is related to tumor aggressiveness. Manual mitosis counting is an extremely tedious manual task, but automated approaches can be used to overcome inefficiency and subjectivity. In this paper, we propose an automatic mitosis and nuclear segmentation method for a diverse set of H&E breast cancer pathology images. The method is based on a conditional generative adversarial network to segment both mitoses and nuclei at the same time. Architecture optimizations are investigated, including hyper parameters and the addition of a focal loss. The accuracy of the proposed method is investigated using images from multiple centers and scanners, including TUPAC16, ICPR14 and ICPR12 datasets. In TUPAC16, we use 618 carefully annotated images of size 256×256 scanned at 40×. TUPAC16 is used to train the model, and segmentation performance is measured on the test set for both nuclei and mitoses. Results on 200 held-out testing images from the TUPAC16 dataset were mean DSC = 0.784 and 0.721 for nuclear and mitosis, respectively. On 202 ICPR12 images, mitosis segmentation accuracy had a mean DSC = 0.782, indicating the model generalizes well to unseen datasets. For datasets that had mitosis centroid annotations, which included 200 TUPAC16, 202 ICPR12 and 524 ICPR14, a mean F1-score of 0.854 was found indicating high mitosis detection accuracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".