Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification by Digital Histopathology and Deep Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a highly heterogeneous disease that requires tools to assess oncologic risk and guide patient management and treatment planning. Current models are based on various clinical and pathologic parameters including Gleason grading, which suffers from a high interobserver variability. In this study, we determine whether objective machine learning (ML)-driven histopathology image analysis would aid us in better risk stratification of PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a deep learning, histopathology image-based risk stratification model that combines clinicopathologic data along with hematoxylin and eosin- and Ki-67-stained histopathology images. We train and test our model, using a five-fold cross-validation strategy, on a data set from 502 treatment-naïve PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2000 and 2012. RESULTS: We used the concordance index as a measure to evaluate the performance of various risk stratification models. Our risk stratification model on the basis of convolutional neural networks demonstrated superior performance compared with Gleason grading and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Post-Surgical risk stratification models. Using our model, 3.9% of the low-risk patients were correctly reclassified to be high-risk and 21.3% of the high-risk patients were correctly reclassified as low-risk. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance of ML as an objective tool for histopathology image assessment and patient risk stratification. With further validation on large cohorts, the digital pathology risk classification we propose may be helpful in guiding administration of adjuvant therapy including radiotherapy after RP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it