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 OpenAlex
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

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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