MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399660468 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32892

Ensemble-based deep learning improves detection of invasive breast cancer in routine histopathology images

2024· article· en· W4399660468 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leslie Solorzano, Stephanie Robertson, Balázs Ács, Johan Hartman, Mattias Rantalainen

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVetenskapsrådetCancerfondenVINNOVASwedish e-Science Research CentreEmissions Reduction Alberta
KeywordsDiceConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEnsemble forecastingEnsemble learningSørensen–Dice coefficientTest setPattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningMathematicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)Image segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate detection of invasive breast cancer (IC) can provide decision support to pathologists as well as improve downstream computational analyses, where detection of IC is a first step. Tissue containing IC is characterized by the presence of specific morphological features, which can be learned by convolutional neural networks (CNN). Here, we compare the use of a single CNN model versus an ensemble of several base models with the same CNN architecture, and we evaluate prediction performance as well as variability across ensemble based model predictions. Two in-house datasets comprising 587 whole slide images (WSI) are used to train an ensemble of ten InceptionV3 models whose consensus is used to determine the presence of IC. A novel visualisation strategy was developed to communicate ensemble agreement spatially. Performance was evaluated in an internal test set with 118 WSIs, and in an additional external dataset (TCGA breast cancer) with 157 WSI. We observed that the ensemble-based strategy outperformed the single CNN-model alternative with respect to accuracy on tile level in 89 % of all WSIs in the test set. The overall accuracy was 0.92 (DICE coefficient, 0.90) for the ensemble model, and 0.85 (DICE coefficient, 0.83) for the single CNN alternative in the internal test set. For TCGA the ensemble outperformed the single CNN in 96.8 % of the WSI, with an accuracy of 0.87 (DICE coefficient 0.89), the single model provides an accuracy of 0.75 (DICE coefficient 0.78). The results suggest that an ensemble-based modeling strategy for breast cancer invasive cancer detection consistently outperforms the conventional single model alternative. Furthermore, visualisation of the ensemble agreement and confusion areas provide direct visual interpretation of the results. High performing cancer detection can provide decision support in the routine pathology setting as well as facilitate downstream computational analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207