Using Deep Learning to Automate Eosinophil Counting in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Histopathological Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accurate identification of inflammatory cells from mucosal histopathology images is important in diagnosing ulcerative colitis. The identification of eosinophils in the colonic mucosa has been associated with disease course. Cell counting is not only time-consuming but can also be subjective to human biases. In this study we developed an automatic eosinophilic cell counting tool from mucosal histopathology images, using deep learning. Method: Four pediatric IBD pathologists from two North American pediatric hospitals annotated 530 crops from 143 standard-of-care hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) rectal mucosal biopsies. A 305/75 split was used for training/validation to develop and optimize a U-Net based deep learning model, and 150 crops were used as a test set. The U-Net model was then compared to SAU-Net, a state-of-the-art U-Net variant. We undertook post-processing steps, namely, (1) the pixel-level probability threshold, (2) the minimum number of clustered pixels to designate a cell, and (3) the connectivity. Experiments were run to optimize model parameters using AUROC and cross-entropy loss as the performance metrics. Results: The F1-score was 0.86 (95%CI:0.79-0.91) (Precision: 0.77 (95%CI:0.70-0.83), Recall: 0.96 (95%CI:0.93-0.99)) to identify eosinophils as compared to an F1-score of 0.2 (95%CI:0.13-0.26) for SAU-Net (Precision: 0.38 (95%CI:0.31-0.46), Recall: 0.13 (95%CI:0.08-0.19)). The inter-rater reliability was 0.96 (95%CI:0.93-0.97). The correlation between two pathologists and the algorithm was 0.89 (95%CI:0.82-0.94) and 0.88 (95%CI:0.80-0.94) respectively. Conclusion: Our results indicate that deep learning-based automated eosinophilic cell counting can obtain a robust level of accuracy with a high degree of concordance with manual expert annotations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".