MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384831373 · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100324

Stain normalization gives greater generalizability than stain jittering in neural network training for the classification of coeliac disease in duodenal biopsy whole slide images

2023· article· en· W4384831373 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pathology Informatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovate UKCoeliac UKPathological Society of Great Britain and IrelandSierra OncologyGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsStainDigital pathologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceScannerNormalization (sociology)BiopsyPattern recognition (psychology)PathologyMedicineStaining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Around 1% of the population of the UK and North America have a diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD), due to a damaging immune response to the small intestine. Assessing whether a patient has CD relies primarily on the examination of a duodenal biopsy, an unavoidably subjective process with poor inter-observer concordance. Wei et al. developed a neural network-based method for diagnosing CD using a dataset of duodenal biopsy whole slide images (WSIs). As all training and validation data came from one source, there was no guarantee that their results would generalize to WSIs obtained from different scanners and laboratories. In this study, the effects of applying stain normalization and jittering to the training data were compared. We trained a deep neural network on 331 WSIs obtained with a Ventana scanner (WSIs; CD: n=190; normal: n=141) to classify presence of CD. In order to test the effects of stain processing when validating on WSIs scanned on varying scanners and from varying laboratories, the neural network was validated on 4 datasets: WSIs of slides scanned on a Ventana scanner (WSIs; CD: n=48; normal: n=35), WSIs of the same slides rescanned on a Hamamatsu scanner (WSIs; CD: n=48; normal: n=35), WSIs of the same slides rescanned on an Aperio scanner (WSIs; CD: n=48; normal: n=35), and WSIs of different slides scanned on an Aperio scanner (WSIs; CD: n=38; normal: n=37). Without stain processing, the F1 scores of the neural network were 0.947, 0.619, 0.746, and 0.727 when validating on the Ventana validation WSIs, Hamamatsu and Aperio rescans of the Ventana validation WSIs, and Aperio WSIs from a different source respectively. With stain normalization, the performance of the neural network improved significantly with respective F1 scores 0.982, 0.943, 0.903, and 0.847. Stain jittering resulted in a better performance than stain normalization when validating on data from the same source F1 score 1.000, but resulted in poorer performance than stain normalization when validating on WSIs from different scanners (F1 scores 0.939, 0.814, and 0.747). This study shows the importance of stain processing, in particular stain normalization, when training machine learning models on duodenal biopsy WSIs to ensure generalizability between different scanners and laboratories.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.279 · 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