MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362694529 · doi:10.1117/12.2654943

Identification of molecular cell type of breast cancer on digital histopathology images using deep learning and multiplexed fluorescence imaging

2023· article· en· W4362694529 on OpenAlexaff
Wenchao Han, Alison Cheung, Vishwesh Ramanathan, Dan Wang, Kela Liu, Martin J. Yaffe, Anne L. Martel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerEstrogen receptorCancerImmunohistochemistryStainHistopathologyPathologyProgesterone receptorArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineStainingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ER, PR (estrogen, progesterone receptor), and HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) status are assessed using immunohistochemistry and reported in standard clinical workflows as they provide valuable information to help treatment planning. The protein Ki67 has also been suggested as a prognostic biomarker but is not routinely evaluated clinically due to insufficient quality assurance. The routine pathological practice usually relies on small biopsies, such that the reduction in consumption is necessary to save materials for special assays. For this purpose, we developed and validated an automatic system for segmenting and identifying the (ER, PR, HER2, Ki67) positive cells from hæmatoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections using multiplexed immunofluorescence (MxIF) images at cellular level as a reference standard. In this study, we used 100 tissue-microarray cores sampled from 56 cases of invasive breast cancer. For ER, we extracted cell nucleus images (HoverNet) from the H&E images and assigned each cell nucleus as ER positive vs. negative based on the corresponding MxIF signals (whole cell segmentation with DeepCSeg) upon H&E to MxIF image registration. We trained a Res-Net 18 and validated the model on a separate test-set for classifying the cells as positive vs. negative for ER, and performed the same experiment for the other three markers. We obtained area-under-the- receiver-operating-characteristic-curves (AUCs) of 0.82 (ER), 0.85 (PR), 0.75 (HER2), 0.82 (Ki67) respectively. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using machine learning to identify molecular status at cellular level directly from the H&E slides.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207