Semi-Supervised Learning to Automate Tumor Bud Detection in Cytokeratin-Stained Whole-Slide Images of Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor budding is a histopathological biomarker associated with metastases and adverse survival outcomes in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients. It is characterized by the presence of single tumor cells or small clusters of cells within the tumor or at the tumor-invasion front. In order to obtain a tumor budding score for a patient, the region with the highest tumor bud density must first be visually identified by a pathologist, after which buds will be counted in the chosen hotspot field. The automation of this process will expectedly increase efficiency and reproducibility. Here, we present a deep learning convolutional neural network model that automates the above procedure. For model training, we used a semi-supervised learning method, to maximize the detection performance despite the limited amount of labeled training data. The model was tested on an independent dataset in which human- and machine-selected hotspots were mapped in relation to each other and manual and machine detected tumor bud numbers in the manually selected fields were compared. We report the results of the proposed method in comparison with visual assessment by pathologists. We show that the automated tumor bud count achieves a prognostic value comparable with visual estimation, while based on an objective and reproducible quantification. We also explore novel metrics to quantify buds such as density and dispersion and report their prognostic value. We have made the model available for research use on the grand-challenge platform.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".