COLLAGE: COnsensus aLignment of muLtiplexing imAGEs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiplexed immunohistochemistry (mIHC) enables the high-dimensional single-cell interrogation of pathological tissue samples. mIHC is commonly based on the collection of high-resolution images from repeated staining cycles of the same tissue sample. Images of individual cycles typically consist of smaller tiles that need to be stitched into larger composite images, while images from serial rounds require alignment in a shared set of coordinates to enable pixel-perfect data integration. Current algorithms for stitching and registration require solving a single large puzzle consisting of billions of pixels making them computationally expensive but moreover forcing them to introduce errors to close the puzzle, which significantly impact the downstream results and the single-cell profiles. Here, we present the development and evaluation of COLLAGE ( CO nsensus a L ignment of mu L tiplexing im AGE s), an innovative stitching and registration method that leverages on the complementarity of these two steps in a ‘divide and conquer’ approach: in contrast to other algorithms, COLLAGE breaks the process down into thousands of small puzzles, enabling extensive parallelisation and not forcing errors in its solution. Because COLLAGE also includes AlgnQC, a novel deep-learning-based evaluation metric of registration quality, the quality of the resulting image stacks is consistently maximised, while images with errors are flagged in an automated way. COLLAGE is available via www.disscovery.org . Abstract Figure
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.020 |
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".