Automated Detection of Maternal Vascular Malperfusion Lesions of the Placenta using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) and fetal growth restriction (FGR) are common obstetrical complications, often with pathological features of maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) in the placenta. Currently, clinical placental pathology methods involve a manual visual examination of histology sections, a practice that can be resource-intensive and demonstrate moderate-to-poor inter-pathologist agreement on diagnostic outcomes, dependant on the degree of pathologist sub-specialty training. Methods This study aims to apply machine learning (ML) feature extraction methods to classify digital images of placental histopathology specimens, collected from cases of HDP [gestational hypertension (GH), preeclampsia (PE), PE + FGR], normotensive FGR, and healthy pregnancies, according to the presence or absence of MVM lesions. 159 digital images were captured from histological placental specimens, manually scored for MVM lesions (MVM- or MVM+) and used to develop a support vector machine (SVM) classifier model, using features extracted from pretrained ResNet18. The model was trained with and without data augmentation, and with and without data shuffling, and the performance of the classifiers assessed and compared through measurements of accuracy, precision, and recall using confusion matrices. Results The SVM model demonstrated accuracies between 7-78% for WSI-level MVM classification, with poorest performance observed on images with borderline MVM presence, as determined through post hoc observation. Conclusion The results are promising for the integration of ML methods into the placental histopathological examination process. Using this study as a proof-of-concept will lead our group and others to carry ML models further in placental histopathology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".