A Mitosis Detection and Classification Methodology with YOLOv5 and Fuzzy Classifiers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histopathological images are examined by pathologists to diagnose cancer.A major step in classifying nuclei as cancerous or non-cancerous is to detect and classify mitosis.Detecting and classifying mitosis, however, can be challenging due to its complex form of proliferation and high similarity to non-mitosis.Typically, pathologists use manual methods to diagnose cancer.However, it is a very laborious, time-consuming and costly method.Computer-aided diagnosis helps pathologists in the early detection and recognition of cancer and increases diagnostic precision.Many methods have been proposed over the years, but researchers have not been able to develop a system that provides high accuracy and reliability for a wide range of applications.This issue motivates us to develop a new methodology for identifying and classifying mitosis in breast histopathological images.First, mitotic-shaped cells are detected with YOLOv5.Both mitotic and non-mitotic cells can be detected by YOLOv5.In results of YOLOv5 diagnosis accuracy and reliability are reduced.After the detection process of mitotic-shaped cells with YOLOv5, fuzzy-based classifiers such as Fuzzy-based K Nearest Neighbor, Fuzzy Min-Max, and Fuzzy Random Forest are applied to distinguish mitotic cells from non-mitotic cells.The performance verification of the proposed methodology is conducted on the MITOS ICPR14 dataset in terms of Precision, Recall and F1-Score.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it