MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281631055 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2022.100347

A semi-supervised learning approach for bladder cancer grading

2022· article· en· W4281631055 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Wenger, Kayvan Tirdad, Alex Dela Cruz, Andrea Mari, Mayada Basheer, Cynthia Kuk, Bas W.G. van Rhijn, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Theodorus van der Kwast, Alireza Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemToronto General HospitalToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLeverage (statistics)Regularization (linguistics)Labeled dataMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Consistency (knowledge bases)Semi-supervised learningDeep learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in semi-supervised learning algorithms (SSL) have made great strides in reducing the training dependency on labeled datasets and requiring that only a subset of the data be labeled. The presented work explores a class of semi-supervised learning algorithms that uses consistency regularization and self-ensembling to leverage the unlabeled portion of the dataset. Labeling medical image datasets are time-consuming and prohibitively expensive, requiring hundreds of hours of effort from expert diagnosticians. This research presents an approach for building and training a deep learning model to grade medical images while requiring only a minimal number of labels. Consistency regularization has been used in SSL to great success in datasets of natural images but not for more complex images such as pathology slides where the dataset consists of cell patterns. This research successfully proposes and applies an SSL algorithm based on the VGG-16 neural network, which combines techniques introduced by the Π model and FixMatch algorithms to a cell pattern-based pathology image dataset. The results presented in this research show that using the proposed approach, it is possible to label only 3% of the samples in a dataset, use the remaining 97% of samples as unlabeled data, and achieve a 19% increase over the baseline accuracy. The second contribution of this research shows a ratio of labeled vs. unlabeled images in a dataset beyond which continuing to label the data increases the cost but offers little performance gains.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning with ApplicationsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207