MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

103 A deep-learning approach to guide acquisition region selection for Imaging Mass Cytometry

2024· article· en· W4404052940 on OpenAlexaff
F. R. N. Schneider, Smriti Kala, Clinton Hupple, James Mansfield

Bibliographic record

VenueRegular and Young Investigator Award Abstracts · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsCanadian Standards Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass cytometryComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Imaging Mass Cytometry™ (IMC™) is the method of choice for single-step staining and high-plex imaging of tissues while avoiding the complications of autofluorescence and cyclic imaging. IMC has three new imaging modes: Preview Mode (PM), Cell Mode (CM) and Tissue Mode (TM). PM rapidly scans a stained tissue to provide a comprehensive overview, mapping out the distribution of over 40 markers and revealing tissue heterogeneity. This enables researchers to make informed decisions about which areas warrant closer examination. Following PM, regions of interest (ROIs) are selected for high-resolution imaging. This is a critical step that is informed by biomarker expression using automated AI algorithms. CM offers high-resolution imaging for detailed analysis of the ROIs identified during PM, all using the same slide. TM provides fast acquisition of the entire tissue at 5-micron resolution, optimal for quantitative pixel-based analysis. These modes support automated, continuous imaging of more than 40 large tissue samples (400 mm2) weekly. Methods Tissue sections of colon adenocarcinoma were stained with a 30-marker IMC panel of structural, tumor, stromal, immune cell and immune activation markers. Images were acquired on the Hyperion XTi™ Imaging System (Standard BioTools™), first in PM and then in CM with automatic selection of ROIs using Phenoplex™ software (Visiopharm®). ROIs were automatically selected based on two criteria: 1) actively proliferating and non-proliferating tumor regions; 2) cold and hot tumor regions as identified by immune hotspots within stromal or epithelial tumor regions. An adjacent serial section was acquired in TM. Single-cell analysis of the images obtained in CM was performed using Phenoplex. Tissue segmentation divided the tissue into tumor epithelial and stromal regions; cell segmentation was based on Iridium DNA channels; and phenotyping was performed using the Guided Workflow. This data was used to compare the immune contexture and spatial distributions via interactive t-SNE plots. Results A high degree of immune infiltration was observed in the tumor, with significant levels of infiltrating myeloid cells. Hotspots of tumor-associated neutrophils expressing granzyme B were found, implicating their role in the recruitment and activation of intratumor CD4+ and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. Conclusions This work demonstrates that Hyperion™ XTi can greatly accelerate the ability of IMC users to gain useful insights from complex biological samples. Phenoplex enables a comprehensive workflow for the analysis of this data, providing automated ROI selection, phenotyping, and spatial analyses of high-resolution IMC images for biological assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegular and Young Investigator Award AbstractsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207