MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380029579 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-5393

Abstract 5393: Comparison of deep learning approaches applied to hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images from women with benign breast disease to predict risk of developing invasive breast cancer

2023· article· en· W4380029579 on OpenAlexaff
Monjoy Saha, Mustapha Abubakar, Thomas E. Rohan, Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Máire A. Duggan, Kathryn Richert-Boe, Jonine D. Figueroa, Jonas S. Almeida, Gretchen L. Gierach

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceH&E stainDeep learningPoolingReceiver operating characteristicPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceHyperparameterBreast cancerDigital pathologySet (abstract data type)Feature (linguistics)MedicinePathologyMachine learningCancerStainingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: To compare deep learning (DL) approaches applied to hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained whole slide images (WSIs) from women with benign breast disease (BBD) to predict risk of developing invasive breast cancer (BC). Method: Two deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) based on a customized 16-layer CNN (known as VGG-16 by Visual Geometry Group, University of Oxford) and an automated CNN (Google’s AutoML) were trained using H&E-stained WSIs to identify distinct histological features on diagnostic BBD biopsies that characterize BBD patients who were (cases, n=347) and were not (controls, n=347) subsequently diagnosed with invasive BC. The CNNs consisted of multiple convolutions, max pooling, fully connected, etc., layers. To incorporate our data into the VGG network, we customized the network architecture and hyperparameters to enhance the classification performances. For AutoML, we used the system's default network with standard hyperparameters. The trained model was then tested on a held-out set of 140 patients (70 cases and 70 controls). The quantitative performance was evaluated using accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SE), precision (PR), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), etc. For qualitative results, we generated heatmaps using weights and feature maps from the final convolution layer of our customized CNN. Heatmaps were superimposed onto original H&E images to highlight different unique features (such as pattern, texture, color, and morphology). Results: We found both deep learning methods to demonstrate remarkable ability in predicting case-control status in the held-out set (AUROC= 90% and 89% for customized CNN and AutoML, respectively). However, our customized CNN outperformed AutoML in terms of ACC (83.57% (95% confidence interval (CI): 76-89%) vs 77.86% (95%CI: 70-84%), respectively); SE (82.85% (95%CI: 72-91%) vs 77.86% (95%CI: 70-84%), respectively); PR (84.05% (95%CI: 73-92%) vs 81.97% (95%CI: 70-91%), respectively); F1 score (83.45% (95%CI: 76-89%) vs 76.34% (95%CI: 68-83%), respectively); as well as error rates (0.16% (95%CI: 0.11-0.24%) vs 0.22% (95%CI: 0.16-0.30%), respectively). Heatmaps revealed specific stromal and epithelial features that were distinct between case and control images. Conclusion: By using routinely available H&E-stained WSIs, we developed a customized CNN that outperformed AutoML in distinguishing future BC cases from controls in a BBD population. The qualitative results identified stromal and epithelial regions in the BBD biopsies that were highly predictive of being a case versus control and vice versa thereby providing etiologic clues into breast cancer development following BBD. Future research will focus on leveraging DL to better understand the histologic basis of BBD progression to invasive BC. Citation Format: Monjoy Saha, Mustapha Abubakar, Thomas E. Rohan, Ruth M. Pfeiffer, Máire A. Duggan, Kathryn Richert-Boe, Jonine D. Figueroa, Jonas S. Almeida, Gretchen L. Gierach. Comparison of deep learning approaches applied to hematoxylin and eosin-stained whole slide images from women with benign breast disease to predict risk of developing invasive breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5393.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicAI in cancer detection→French-language works237,207→