MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391212953 · doi:10.1016/j.labinv.2024.100341

Reliability and Variability of Ki-67 Digital Image Analysis Methods for Clinical Diagnostics in Breast Cancer

2024· article· en· W4391212953 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie Dawe, Wei Shi, Tian Yu Liu, Katherine Lajkosz, Yukiko Shibahara, Nakita E. K. Gopal, Rokshana Stephny Geread, Seyed Hossein Mirjahanmardi, Carrie Wei, Sehrish Butt, Moustafa Abdalla, Sabrina Manolescu, Sheng‐Ben Liang, Dianne Chadwick, Michael H. A. Roehrl, Trevor D. McKee, Adewunmi Adeoye, David R. McCready, April Khademi, Fei‐Fei Liu, Anthony Fyles, Susan J. Done

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Investigation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cancer SocietyOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsDigital image analysisBreast cancerReliability (semiconductor)Digital imageMedicineCancerPathologyInternal medicineComputer scienceImage processingOncologyImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ki-67 is a nuclear protein associated with proliferation, and a strong potential biomarker in breast cancer, but is not routinely measured in current clinical management owing to a lack of standardization. Digital image analysis (DIA) is a promising technology that could allow high-throughput analysis and standardization. There is a dearth of data on the clinical reliability as well as intra- and interalgorithmic variability of different DIA methods. In this study, we scored and compared a set of breast cancer cases in which manually counted Ki-67 has already been demonstrated to have prognostic value (n = 278) to 5 DIA methods, namely Aperio ePathology (Lieca Biosystems), Definiens Tissue Studio (Definiens AG), Qupath, an unsupervised immunohistochemical color histogram algorithm, and a deep-learning pipeline piNET. The piNET system achieved high agreement (interclass correlation coefficient: 0.850) and correlation (R = 0.85) with the reference score. The Qupath algorithm exhibited a high degree of reproducibility among all rater instances (interclass correlation coefficient: 0.889). Although piNET performed well against absolute manual counts, none of the tested DIA methods classified common Ki-67 cutoffs with high agreement or reached the clinically relevant Cohen's κ of at least 0.8. The highest agreement achieved was a Cohen's κ statistic of 0.73 for cutoffs 20% and 25% by the piNET system. The main contributors to interalgorithmic variation and poor cutoff characterization included heterogeneous tumor biology, varying algorithm implementation, and setting assignments. It appears that image segmentation is the primary explanation for semiautomated intra-algorithmic variation, which involves significant manual intervention to correct. Automated pipelines, such as piNET, may be crucial in developing robust and reproducible unbiased DIA approaches to accurately quantify Ki-67 for clinical diagnosis in the future.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory InvestigationSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207