Single patch super-resolution of histopathology whole slide images: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeThe latest generation of scanners can digitize histopathology glass slides for computerized image analysis. These images contain valuable information for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. Consequently, the availability of high digital magnifications like 20 × and 40 × is commonly expected in scanning the slides. Thus, the image acquisition typically generates gigapixel high-resolution images, times as large as 100,000 × 100,000 pixels. Naturally, the storage and processing of such huge files may be subject to severe computational bottlenecks. As a result, the need for techniques that can operate on lower magnification levels but produce results on par with outcomes for high magnification levels is becoming urgent.ApproachOver the past decade, the digital solution of enhancing images resolution has been addressed by the concept of super resolution (SR). In addition, deep learning has offered state-of-the-art results for increasing the image resolution after acquisition. In this study, multiple deep learning networks designed for image SR are trained and assessed for the histopathology domain.ResultsWe report quantitative and qualitative comparisons of the results using publicly available cancer images to shed light on the benefits and challenges of deep learning for extrapolating image resolution in histopathology. Three pathologists evaluated the results to assess the quality and diagnostic value of generated SR images.ConclusionsPixel-level information, including structures and textures in histopathology images, are learnable by deep networks; hence improving the resolution quantity of scanned slides is possible by training appropriate networks. Different SR networks may perform best for various cancer sites and subtypes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".