A comprehensive AI model development framework for consistent Gleason grading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial Intelligence(AI)-based solutions for Gleason grading hold promise for pathologists, while image quality inconsistency, continuous data integration needs, and limited generalizability hinder their adoption and scalability. METHODS: We present a comprehensive digital pathology workflow for AI-assisted Gleason grading. It incorporates A!MagQC (image quality control), A!HistoClouds (cloud-based annotation), Pathologist-AI Interaction (PAI) for continuous model improvement, Trained on Akoya-scanned images only, the model utilizes color augmentation and image appearance migration to address scanner variations. We evaluate it on Whole Slide Images (WSI) from another five scanners and conduct validations with pathologists to assess AI efficacy and PAI. RESULTS: Our model achieves an average F1 score of 0.80 on annotations and 0.71 Quadratic Weighted Kappa on WSIs for Akoya-scanned images. Applying our generalization solution increases the average F1 score for Gleason pattern detection from 0.73 to 0.88 on images from other scanners. The model accelerates Gleason scoring time by 43% while maintaining accuracy. Additionally, PAI improve annotation efficiency by 2.5 times and led to further improvements in model performance. CONCLUSIONS: This pipeline represents a notable advancement in AI-assisted Gleason grading for improved consistency, accuracy, and efficiency. Unlike previous methods limited by scanner specificity, our model achieves outstanding performance across diverse scanners. This improvement paves the way for its seamless integration into clinical workflows.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".