Artificial intelligence unravels interpretable malignancy grades of prostate cancer on histology images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malignancy grading of prostate cancer (PCa) is fundamental for risk stratification, patient counseling, and treatment decision-making. Deep learning has shown potential to improve the expert consensus for tumor grading, which relies on the Gleason score/grade grouping. However, the core problem of interobserver variability for the Gleason grading system remains unresolved. We developed a novel grading system for PCa and utilized artificial intelligence (AI) and multi-institutional international datasets from 2647 PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy with a long follow-up of ≥10 years for biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific death. Through survival analyses, we evaluated the novel grading system and showed that AI could develop a tumor grading system with four risk groups independent from and superior to the current five grade groups. Moreover, AI could develop a scoring system that reflects the risk of castration resistant PCa in men who have experienced biochemical recurrence. Thus, AI has the potential to develop an effective grading system for PCa interpretable by human experts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".