Deep learning for fully-automated nuclear pleomorphism scoring in breast cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To guide the choice of treatment, every new breast cancer is assessed for aggressiveness (i.e., graded) by an experienced histopathologist. Typically, this tumor grade consists of three components, one of which is the nuclear pleomorphism score (the extent of abnormalities in the overall appearance of tumor nuclei). The degree of nuclear pleomorphism is subjectively classified from 1 to 3, where a score of 1 most closely resembles epithelial cells of normal breast epithelium and 3 shows the greatest abnormalities. Establishing numerical criteria for grading nuclear pleomorphism is challenging, and inter-observer agreement is poor. Therefore, we studied the use of deep learning to develop fully automated nuclear pleomorphism scoring in breast cancer. The reference standard used for training the algorithm consisted of the collective knowledge of an international panel of 10 pathologists on a curated set of regions of interest covering the entire spectrum of tumor morphology in breast cancer. To fully exploit the information provided by the pathologists, a first-of-its-kind deep regression model was trained to yield a continuous scoring rather than limiting the pleomorphism scoring to the standard three-tiered system. Our approach preserves the continuum of nuclear pleomorphism without necessitating a large data set with explicit annotations of tumor nuclei. Once translated to the traditional system, our approach achieves top pathologist-level performance in multiple experiments on regions of interest and whole-slide images, compared to a panel of 10 and 4 pathologists, respectively.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it