MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391066052 · doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2024.101008

Primary liver cancer classification from routine tumour biopsy using weakly supervised deep learning

2024· article· en· W4391066052 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélie Bèaufrere, Nora Ouzir, Paul Emile Zafar, Astrid Laurent-Bellue, Miguel Albuquerque, Gwladys Lubuela, Jules Grégory, Catherine Guettier, Kévin Mondet, Jean‐Christophe Pesquet, Valérie Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueJHEP Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceHepatocellular carcinomaLiver cancerCluster analysisIntrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaComputer scienceMedicineCancerPathologyBiopsyConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & Aims: The diagnosis of primary liver cancers (PLCs) can be challenging, especially on biopsies and for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA). We automatically classified PLCs on routine-stained biopsies using a weakly supervised learning method. Method: We selected 166 PLC biopsies divided into training, internal and external validation sets: 90, 29 and 47 samples, respectively. Two liver pathologists reviewed each whole-slide hematein eosin saffron (HES)-stained image (WSI). After annotating the tumour/non-tumour areas, tiles of 256x256 pixels were extracted from the WSIs and used to train a ResNet18 neural network. The tumour/non-tumour annotations served as labels during training, and the network's last convolutional layer was used to extract new tumour tile features. Without knowledge of the precise labels of the malignancies, we then applied an unsupervised clustering algorithm. Results: Pathological review classified the training and validation sets into hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, 33/90, 11/29 and 26/47), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA, 28/90, 9/29 and 15/47), and cHCC-CCA (29/90, 9/29 and 6/47). In the two-cluster model, Clusters 0 and 1 contained mainly HCC and iCCA histological features. The diagnostic agreement between the pathological diagnosis and the two-cluster model predictions (major contingent) in the internal and external validation sets was 100% (11/11) and 96% (25/26) for HCC and 78% (7/9) and 87% (13/15) for iCCA, respectively. For cHCC-CCA, we observed a highly variable proportion of tiles from each cluster (cluster 0: 5-97%; cluster 1: 2-94%). Conclusion: Our method applied to PLC HES biopsy could identify specific morphological features of HCC and iCCA. Although no specific features of cHCC-CCA were recognized, assessing the proportion of HCC and iCCA tiles within a slide could facilitate the identification of cHCC-CCA. Impact and implications: The diagnosis of primary liver cancers can be challenging, especially on biopsies and for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA). We automatically classified primary liver cancers on routine-stained biopsies using a weakly supervised learning method. Our model identified specific features of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Despite no specific features of cHCC-CCA being recognized, the identification of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tiles within a slide could facilitate the diagnosis of primary liver cancers, and particularly cHCC-CCA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJHEP ReportsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207