The ACROBAT 2022 challenge: Automatic registration of breast cancer tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alignment of tissue between histopathological whole-slide-images (WSI) is crucial for research and clinical applications. Advances in computing, deep learning, and availability of large WSI datasets have revolutionised WSI analysis. Therefore, the current state-of-the-art in WSI registration is unclear. To address this, we conducted the ACROBAT challenge, based on the largest WSI registration dataset to date, including 4,212 WSIs from 1,152 breast cancer patients. The challenge objective was to align WSIs of tissue that was stained with routine diagnostic immunohistochemistry to its H&E-stained counterpart. We compare the performance of eight WSI registration algorithms, including an investigation of the impact of different WSI properties and clinical covariates. We find that conceptually distinct WSI registration methods can lead to highly accurate registration performances and identify covariates that impact performances across methods. These results provide a comparison of the performance of current WSI registration methods and guide researchers in selecting and developing methods.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".