A Deep Learning Approach for the Identification of the Molecular Subtypes of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Based on Whole Slide Pathology Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delayed diagnosis and treatment resistance result in high pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) mortality rates. Identifying molecular subtypes can improve treatment, but current methods are costly and time-consuming. In this study, deep learning models were used to identify histologic features that classify PDAC molecular subtypes based on routine hematoxylin-eosin-stained histopathologic slides. A total of 97 histopathology slides associated with resectable PDAC from The Cancer Genome Atlas project were used to train a deep learning model and test the performance on 44 needle biopsy material (110 slides) from a local annotated patient cohort. The model achieved balanced accuracy of 96.19% and 83.03% in identifying the classical and basal subtypes of PDAC in The Cancer Genome Atlas and the local cohort, respectively. This study provides a promising method to cost-effectively and rapidly classify PDAC molecular subtypes based on routine hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides, potentially leading to more effective clinical management of this disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".