Mitosis domain generalization in histopathology images — The MIDOG challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The density of mitotic figures (MF) within tumor tissue is known to be highly correlated with tumor proliferation and thus is an important marker in tumor grading. Recognition of MF by pathologists is subject to a strong inter-rater bias, limiting its prognostic value. State-of-the-art deep learning methods can support experts but have been observed to strongly deteriorate when applied in a different clinical environment. The variability caused by using different whole slide scanners has been identified as one decisive component in the underlying domain shift. The goal of the MICCAI MIDOG 2021 challenge was the creation of scanner-agnostic MF detection algorithms. The challenge used a training set of 200 cases, split across four scanning systems. As test set, an additional 100 cases split across four scanning systems, including two previously unseen scanners, were provided. In this paper, we evaluate and compare the approaches that were submitted to the challenge and identify methodological factors contributing to better performance. The winning algorithm yielded an F 1 score of 0.748 (CI95: 0.704-0.781), exceeding the performance of six experts on the same task. • MIDOG is the first challenge to address domain generalization in histopathology. • The main task was mitosis detection in breast cancer, an important prognostic marker. • The challenge dataset features 300 cases, 6 scanners, and more than 2500 mitosis. • This makes it the – to date – largest and most diverse labeled dataset on this task. • The results of the top methods were comparable to expert pathologists.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".