AI improves accuracy, agreement and efficiency of pathologists for Ki67 assessments in breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ki-67 proliferation index (PI) guides treatment decisions in breast cancer but suffers from poor inter-rater reproducibility. Although AI tools have been designed for Ki-67 assessment, their impact on pathologists' work remains understudied. 90 international pathologists were recruited to assess the Ki-67 PI of ten breast cancer tissue microarrays with and without AI. Accuracy, agreement, and turnaround time with and without AI were compared. Pathologists' perspectives on AI were collected. Using AI led to a significant decrease in PI error (2.1% with AI vs. 5.9% without AI, p < 0.001), better inter-rater agreement (ICC: 0.70 vs. 0.92; Krippendorff's α: 0.63 vs. 0.89; Fleiss' Kappa: 0.40 vs. 0.86), and an 11.9% overall median reduction in turnaround time. Most pathologists (84%) found the AI reliable. For Ki-67 assessments, 76% of respondents believed AI enhances accuracy, 82% said it improves consistency, and 83% trust it will improve efficiency. This study highlights AI's potential to standardize Ki-67 scoring, especially between 5 and 30% PI-a range with low PI agreement. This could pave the way for a universally accepted PI score to guide treatment decisions, emphasizing the promising role of AI integration into pathologist workflows.
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 | 0.099 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".