The 1000 Mitoses Project: A Consensus-Based International Collaborative Study on Mitotic Figures Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The identification of mitotic figures is essential for the diagnosis, grading, and classification of various different tumors. Despite its importance, there is a paucity of literature reporting the consistency in interpreting mitotic figures among pathologists. This study leverages publicly accessible datasets and social media to recruit an international group of pathologists to score an image database of more than 1000 mitotic figures collectively. Materials and Methods. Pathologists were instructed to randomly select a digital slide from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets and annotate 10-20 mitotic figures within a 2 mm 2 area. The first 1010 submitted mitotic figures were used to create an image dataset, with each figure transformed into an individual tile at 40x magnification. The dataset was redistributed to all pathologists to review and determine whether each tile constituted a mitotic figure. Results. Overall pathologists had a median agreement rate of 80.2% (range 42.0%-95.7%). Individual mitotic figure tiles had a median agreement rate of 87.1% and a fair inter-rater agreement across all tiles (kappa = 0.284). Mitotic figures in prometaphase had lower percentage agreement rates compared to other phases of mitosis. Conclusion. This dataset stands as the largest international consensus study for mitotic figures to date and can be utilized as a training set for future studies. The agreement range reflects a spectrum of criteria that pathologists use to decide what constitutes a mitotic figure, which may have potential implications in tumor diagnostics and clinical management.
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 | 0.070 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".