MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391065733 · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100357

Computational pathology: A survey review and the way forward

2024· review· en· W4391065733 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahdi S. Hosseini, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Vincent Quoc‐Huy Trinh, Lyndon Chan, Danial Hasan, Xingwen Li, Stephen C. Yang, Taehyo Kim, Haochen Zhang, Theodore Wu, Kajanan Chinniah, Sina Maghsoudlou, Ryan Zhang, Jiadai Zhu, Samir Khaki, Andrei Buin, Fatemeh Chaji, Ala Salehi, Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Dimitris Samaras, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pathology Informatics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceDigital pathologyInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational Pathology (CPath) is an interdisciplinary science that augments developments of computational approaches to analyze and model medical histopathology images. The main objective for CPath is to develop infrastructure and workflows of digital diagnostics as an assistive CAD system for clinical pathology, facilitating transformational changes in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer that are mainly address by CPath tools. With evergrowing developments in deep learning and computer vision algorithms, and the ease of the data flow from digital pathology, currently CPath is witnessing a paradigm shift. Despite the sheer volume of engineering and scientific works being introduced for cancer image analysis, there is still a considerable gap of adopting and integrating these algorithms in clinical practice. This raises a significant question regarding the direction and trends that are undertaken in CPath. In this article we provide a comprehensive review of more than 800 papers to address the challenges faced in problem design all-the-way to the application and implementation viewpoints. We have catalogued each paper into a model-card by examining the key works and challenges faced to layout the current landscape in CPath. We hope this helps the community to locate relevant works and facilitate understanding of the field's future directions. In a nutshell, we oversee the CPath developments in cycle of stages which are required to be cohesively linked together to address the challenges associated with such multidisciplinary science. We overview this cycle from different perspectives of data-centric, model-centric, and application-centric problems. We finally sketch remaining challenges and provide directions for future technical developments and clinical integration of CPath. For updated information on this survey review paper and accessing to the original model cards repository, please refer to GitHub. Updated version of this draft can also be found from arXiv.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pathology InformaticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207