Histological interpretation of spitzoid tumours: an extensive machine learning‐based concordance analysis for improving decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The histopathological classification of melanocytic tumours with spitzoid features remains a challenging task. We confront the complexities involved in the histological classification of these tumours by proposing machine learning (ML) algorithms that objectively categorise the most relevant features in order of importance. The data set comprises 122 tumours (39 benign, 44 atypical and 39 malignant) from four different countries. BRAF and NRAS mutation status was evaluated in 51. Analysis of variance score was performed to rank 22 clinicopathological variables. The Gaussian naive Bayes algorithm achieved in distinguishing Spitz naevus from malignant spitzoid tumours with an accuracy of 0.95 and kappa score of 0.87, utilising the 12 most important variables. For benign versus non-benign Spitz tumours, the test reached a kappa score of 0.88 using the 13 highest-scored features. Furthermore, for the atypical Spitz tumours (AST) versus Spitz melanoma comparison, the logistic regression algorithm achieved a kappa value of 0.66 and an accuracy rate of 0.85. When the three categories were compared most AST were classified as melanoma, because of the similarities on histological features between the two groups. Our results show promise in supporting the histological classification of these tumours in clinical practice, and provide valuable insight into the use of ML to improve the accuracy and objectivity of this process while minimising interobserver variability. These proposed algorithms represent a potential solution to the lack of a clear threshold for the Spitz/spitzoid tumour classification, and its high accuracy supports its usefulness as a helpful tool to improve diagnostic decision-making.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".