MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378172114 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2022-0432-oa

A Pilot Validation Study Comparing Fluorescence-Imitating Brightfield Imaging, A Slide-Free Imaging Method, With Standard Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Hematoxylin-Eosin–Stained Tissue Section Histology for Primary Surgical Pathology Diagnosis

2023· article· en· W4378172114 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander D. Borowsky, Richard M. Levenson, Allen M. Gown, Taryn Morningstar, Thomas A. Fleury, Gregory C. Henderson, Kurt B. Schaberg, Amelia Sybenga, Eric F. Glassy, Sandra L. Taylor, Farzad Fereidouni

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsH&E stainDigital pathologySurgical pathologyGold standard (test)Medical diagnosisPathologyMedicineMicrotomeConcordanceRadiologyNuclear medicineStaining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT.—: Digital pathology using whole slide images has been recently approved to support primary diagnosis in clinical surgical pathology practices. Here we describe a novel imaging method, fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging, that can capture the surface of fresh tissue without requiring prior fixation, paraffin embedding, tissue sectioning, or staining. OBJECTIVE.—: To compare the ability of pathologists to evaluate direct-to-digital images with standard pathology preparations. DESIGN.—: One hundred surgical pathology samples were obtained. Samples were first digitally imaged, then processed for standard histologic examination on 4-μm hematoxylin-eosin-stained sections and digitally scanned. The resulting digital images from both digital and standard scan sets were viewed by each of 4 reading pathologists. The data set consisted of 100 reference diagnoses and 800 study pathologist reads. Each study read was compared to the reference diagnosis, and also compared to that reader's diagnosis across both modalities. RESULTS.—: The overall agreement rate, across 800 reads, was 97.9%. This consisted of 400 digital reads at 97.0% versus reference and 400 standard reads versus reference at 98.8%. Minor discordances (defined as alternative diagnoses without clinical treatment or outcome implications) were 6.1% overall, 7.2% for digital, and 5.0% for standard. CONCLUSIONS.—: Pathologists can provide accurate diagnoses from fluorescence-imitating brightfield imaging slide-free images. Concordance and discordance rates are similar to published rates for comparisons of whole slide imaging to standard light microscopy of glass slides for primary diagnosis. It may be possible, therefore, to develop a slide-free, nondestructive approach for primary pathology diagnosis.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207