Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Gleason Grading Algorithms “in the Wild”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biopsy Gleason score is an important prognostic marker for prostate cancer patients. It is, however, subject to substantial variability among pathologists. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms employing deep learning have shown their ability to match pathologists' performance in assigning Gleason scores, with the potential to enhance pathologists' grading accuracy. The performance of Gleason AI algorithms in research is mostly reported on common benchmark data sets or within public challenges. In contrast, many commercial algorithms are evaluated in clinical studies, for which data are not publicly released. As commercial AI vendors typically do not publish performance on public benchmarks, comparison between research and commercial AI is difficult. The aims of this study are to evaluate and compare the performance of top-ranked public and commercial algorithms using real-world data. We curated a diverse data set of whole-slide prostate biopsy images through crowdsourcing containing images with a range of Gleason scores and from diverse sources. Predictions were obtained from 5 top-ranked public algorithms from the Prostate cANcer graDe Assessment (PANDA) challenge and 2 commercial Gleason grading algorithms. Additionally, 10 pathologists (A.C., C.R., J.v.I., K.R.M.L., P.R., P.G.S., R.G., S.F.K.J., T.v.d.K., X.F.) evaluated the data set in a reader study. Overall, the pairwise quadratic weighted kappa among pathologists ranged from 0.777 to 0.916. Both public and commercial algorithms showed high agreement with pathologists, with quadratic kappa ranging from 0.617 to 0.900. Commercial algorithms performed on par or outperformed top public algorithms.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".