MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362456932 · doi:10.3390/cancers15072079

Semi-Supervised Learning to Automate Tumor Bud Detection in Cytokeratin-Stained Whole-Slide Images of Colorectal Cancer

2023· article· en· W4362456932 on OpenAlexaff
John‐Melle Bokhorst, Irıs D. Nagtegaal, Inti Zlobec, Heather Dawson, Kieran Sheahan, Femke Simmer, Richard Kirsch, Michael Vieth, Alessandro Lugli, Jeroen van der Laak, Francesco Ciompi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSwiss Cancer Research FoundationKWF Kankerbestrijding
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTumor buddingConvolutional neural networkColorectal cancerMachine learningDeep learningCancerMedicineMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207