A Preliminary Investigation into Search and Matching for Tumor Discrimination in World Health Organization Breast Taxonomy Using Deep Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers affecting women worldwide. It includes a group of malignant neoplasms with a variety of biological, clinical, and histopathologic characteristics. There are more than 35 different histologic forms of breast lesions that can be classified and diagnosed histologically according to cell morphology, growth, and architecture patterns. Recently, deep learning, in the field of artificial intelligence, has drawn a lot of attention for the computerized representation of medical images. Searchable digital atlases can provide pathologists with patch-matching tools, allowing them to search among evidently diagnosed and treated archival cases, a technology that may be regarded as computational second opinion. In this study, we indexed and analyzed the World Health Organization breast taxonomy (Classification of Tumors fifth ed.) spanning 35 tumor types. We visualized all tumor types using deep features extracted from a state-of-the-art deep-learning model, pretrained on millions of diagnostic histopathology images from the Cancer Genome Atlas repository. Furthermore, we tested the concept of a digital "atlas" as a reference for search and matching with rare test cases. The patch similarity search within the World Health Organization breast taxonomy data reached >88% accuracy when validating through "majority vote" and >91% accuracy when validating using top n tumor types. These results show for the first time that complex relationships among common and rare breast lesions can be investigated using an indexed digital archive.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".