Histopathological carcinoma classification using parallel, cross‐concatenated and grouped convolutions deep neural network
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
Abstract Cancer is more alarming in modern days due to its identification at later stages. Among cancers, lung, liver and colon cancers are the leading cause of untimely death. Manual cancer identification from histopathological images is time‐consuming and labour‐intensive. Thereby, computer‐aided decision support systems are desired. A deep learning model is proposed in this paper to accurately identify cancer. Convolutional neural networks have shown great ability to identify the significant patterns for cancer classification. The proposed Parallel, Cross Concatenated and Grouped Convolutions Deep Neural Network (PC 2 GCDN 2 ) has been developed to obtain accurate patterns for classification. To prove the robustness of the model, it is evaluated on the KMC and TCGA‐LIHC liver dataset, LC25000 dataset for lung and colon cancer classification. The proposed PC 2 GCDN 2 model outperforms states‐of‐the‐art methods. The model provides 5.5% improved accuracy compared to the LiverNet proposed by Aatresh et. al on the KMC dataset. On the LC25000 dataset, 2% improvement is observed compared to existing models. Performance evaluation metrics like Sensitivity, Specificity, Recall, F1‐Score and Intersection‐Over‐Union are used to evaluate the performance. To the best of our knowledge, PC 2 GCDN 2 can be considered as gold standard for multiple histopathology image classification. PC 2 GCDN is able to classify the KMC and TCGA‐LIHC liver dataset with 96.4% and 98.6% accuracy, respectively, which are the best results obtained till now. The performance has been superior on LC25000 dataset with 99.5% and 100% classification accuracy on lung and colon dataset, by utilizing less than 0.5 million parameters.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it