MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting cancer content in tiles of lung squamous cell carcinoma tumours with validation against pathologist labels

2024· article· en· W4405012360 on OpenAlexafffund
Salma Dammak, Matthew J. Cecchini, Katherina Baranova, Aaron D. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in Biology and Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersGovernment of OntarioLondon Health Sciences FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMerck
KeywordsBasal cellLung cancerPathologyMedicineLungCancerSquamous carcinomaCarcinomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing body of research is using deep learning to explore the relationship between treatment biomarkers for lung cancer patients and cancer tissue morphology on digitized whole slide images (WSIs) of tumour resections. However, these WSIs typically contain non-cancer tissue, introducing noise during model training. As digital pathology models typically start with splitting WSIs into tiles, we propose a model that can be used to exclude non-cancer tiles from the WSIs of lung squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) tumours. We obtained 116 WSIs of tumours from 35 different centres from the Cancer Genome Atlas. A pathologist completed or reviewed cancer contours in four regions of interest (ROIs) within each WSIs. We then split the ROIs into tiles labelled with the percentage of cancer tissue within them and trained VGG16 to predict this value, and then we calculated regression error. To measure classification performance and visualize the classification results, we thresholded the predictions and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The model's median regression error was 4% with a standard deviation of 35%. At a cancer threshold of 50%, the model had an AUC of 0.83. False positives tended to be in tissues that surround cancer, tiles with <50% cancer, and areas with high immune activity. False negatives tended to be microtomy defects. With further validation for each specific research application, the model we describe in this paper could facilitate the development of more effective research pipelines for predicting treatment biomarkers for lung SqCC. • CNN can predict cancer content in lung SqCC tumor tiles using VGG16. • Validated on multi-center dataset, achieving AUC of 0.83 for cancer classification. • Single whole slide demo processed in ∼1/9th time of a pathologist, AUC = 0.85. • False positives are common near cancer edges and in high immune activity zones. • Model could aid biomarker research, with consistent and explainable errors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers in Biology and MedicineSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207