Deep learning for histopathological subtyping and grading of lung adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The histopathological distinction of lung adenocarcinoma (LADC) subtypes is subject to high inter-observer variability, which can compromise the optimal assessment of the patient prognosis. Therefore, this study developed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) capable of distinguishing LADC subtypes and predicting disease-specific survival, according to the LADC tumour grades established recently by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer pathology committee. Consensus LADC ground truth histopathological images were obtained from seventeen expert pulmonary pathologists and one pathologist in training. Two deep learning models (AI-1 and AI-2) were trained with EfficientNet b3 architecture to predict eight different LADC classes (lepidic, acinar, papillary, micropapillary, solid, invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, other carcinoma types, and no carcinoma cells). Furthermore, the trained models were tested on an independent cohort of 133 patients. The models achieved high precision, recall, and F1-scores exceeding 0.90 for most of the LADC classes. Clear stratification of the three LADC grades was reached in predicting the disease-specific survival by the two models. Moreover, the grading prediction of one of the trained models was more accurate than those of 14 out of 15 pulmonary pathologists involved in the study ( p =0.0003). Both trained models showed high stability in the segmentation of each pair of predicted grades with low variation in the hazard ratio across 200 bootstrapped samples. These findings indicate that the trained CNNs improve the diagnostic accuracy of the pathologist, standardise LADC subtype recognition, and refine LADC grade assessment. Thus, the trained models are promising tools that may assist in the routine evaluation of LADC subtypes and grades in clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".