MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313893521 · doi:10.1002/ima.22846

Histopathological carcinoma classification using parallel, cross‐concatenated and grouped convolutions deep neural network

2023· article· en· W4313893521 on OpenAlexaff
Ravindranath Kadirappa, S. Deivalakshmi, Seok‐Bum Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationMinistry of Education, IndiaKasturba Medical College, Manipal
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningArtificial neural networkRobustness (evolution)Liver cancerContextual image classificationMachine learningCancerMedicineImage (mathematics)Internal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (PC2GCDN2) 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 PC2GCDN2 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, PC2GCDN2 can be considered as gold standard for multiple histopathology image classification. PC2GCDN 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Imaging Systems and TechnologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207