Removing non-nuclei information from histopathological images: A preprocessing step towards improving nuclei segmentation methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease interpretation by computer-aided diagnosis systems in digital pathology depends on reliable detection and segmentation of nuclei in hematoxylin and eosin (HE) images. These 2 tasks are challenging since appearance of both cell nuclei and background structures are very variable. This paper presents a method to improve nuclei detection and segmentation in HE images by removing tiles that only contain background information. The method divides each image into smaller patches and uses their projection to the noiselet space to capture different spatial features from non-nuclei background and nuclei structures. The noiselet features are clustered by a K-means algorithm and the resultant partition, defined by the cluster centroids, is herein named the noiselet code-book. A part of an image, a tile, is divided into patches and represented by the histogram of occurrences of the projected patches in the noiselet code-book. Finally, with these histograms, a classifier learns to differentiate between nuclei and non-nuclei tiles. By applying a conventional watershed-marked method to detect and segment nuclei, evaluation consisted in comparing pure watershed method against denoising-plus-watershed in an open database with 8 different types of tissues. The averaged F-score of nuclei detection improved from 0.830 to 0.86 and the dice score after segmentation increased from 0.701 to 0.723.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".