Automatic Prostate Gleason Grading Using Pyramid Semantic Parsing Network in Digital Histopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Prostate biopsy histopathology and immunohistochemistry are important in the differential diagnosis of the disease and can be used to assess the degree of prostate cancer differentiation. Today, prostate biopsy is increasing the demand for experienced uropathologists, which puts a lot of pressure on pathologists. In addition, the grades of different observations had an indicating effect on the treatment of the patients with cancer, but the grades were highly changeable, and excessive treatment and insufficient treatment often occurred. To alleviate these problems, an artificial intelligence system with clinically acceptable prostate cancer detection and Gleason grade accuracy was developed. Methods: Deep learning algorithms have been proved to outperform other algorithms in the analysis of large data and show great potential with respect to the analysis of pathological sections. Inspired by the classical semantic segmentation network, we propose a pyramid semantic parsing network (PSPNet) for automatic prostate Gleason grading. To boost the segmentation performance, we get an auxiliary prediction output, which is mainly the optimization of auxiliary objective function in the process of network training. The network not only includes effective global prior representations but also achieves good results in tissue micro-array (TMA) image segmentation. Results: Our method is validated using 321 biopsies from the Vancouver Prostate Centre and ranks the first on the MICCAI 2019 prostate segmentation and classification benchmark and the Vancouver Prostate Centre data. To prove the reliability of the proposed method, we also conduct an experiment to test the consistency with the diagnosis of pathologists. It demonstrates that the well-designed method in our study can achieve good results. The experiment also focused on the distinction between high-risk cancer (Gleason pattern 4, 5) and low-risk cancer (Gleason pattern 3). Our proposed method also achieves the best performance with respect to various evaluation metrics for distinguishing benign from malignant. Availability: The Python source code of the proposed method is publicly available at https://github.com/hubutui/Gleason. All implementation details are presented in this paper. Conclusion: These works prove that the Gleason grading results obtained from our method are effective and accurate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".