Fully Automated Tumor Bud Assessment in Hematoxylin and Eosin-Stained Whole Slide Images of Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor budding (TB), the presence of single cells or small clusters of up to 4 tumor cells at the invasive front of colorectal cancer (CRC), is a proven risk factor for adverse outcomes. International definitions are necessary to reduce interobserver variability. According to the current international guidelines, hotspots at the invasive front should be counted in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides. This is time-consuming and prone to interobserver variability; therefore, there is a need for computer-aided diagnosis solutions. In this study, we report an artificial intelligence-based method for detecting TB in H&E-stained whole slide images. We propose a fully automated pipeline to identify the tumor border, detect tumor buds, characterize them based on the number of tumor cells, and produce a TB density map to identify the TB hotspot. The method outputs the TB count in the hotspot as a computational biomarker. We show that the proposed automated TB detection workflow performs on par with a panel of 5 pathologists at detecting tumor buds and that the hotspot-based TB count is an independent prognosticator in both the univariate and the multivariate analysis, validated on a cohort of n = 981 patients with CRC. Computer-aided detection of tumor buds based on deep learning can perform on par with expert pathologists for the detection and quantification of tumor buds in H&E-stained CRC histopathology slides, strongly facilitating the introduction of budding as an independent prognosticator in clinical routine and clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".