Engineering the future of <scp>3D</scp> pathology
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
In recent years, technological advances in tissue preparation, high-throughput volumetric microscopy, and computational infrastructure have enabled rapid developments in nondestructive 3D pathology, in which high-resolution histologic datasets are obtained from thick tissue specimens, such as whole biopsies, without the need for physical sectioning onto glass slides. While 3D pathology generates massive datasets that are attractive for automated computational analysis, there is also a desire to use 3D pathology to improve the visual assessment of tissue histology. In this perspective, we discuss and provide examples of potential advantages of 3D pathology for the visual assessment of clinical specimens and the challenges of dealing with large 3D datasets (of individual or multiple specimens) that pathologists have not been trained to interpret. We discuss the need for artificial intelligence triaging algorithms and explainable analysis methods to assist pathologists or other domain experts in the interpretation of these novel, often complex, large datasets.
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 | 0.035 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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