Stress testing deep learning models for prostate cancer detection on biopsies and surgical specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presence, location, and extent of prostate cancer is assessed by pathologists using H&E‐stained tissue slides. Machine learning approaches can accomplish these tasks for both biopsies and radical prostatectomies. Deep learning approaches using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been shown to identify cancer in pathologic slides, some securing regulatory approval for clinical use. However, differences in sample processing can subtly alter the morphology between sample types, making it unclear whether deep learning algorithms will consistently work on both types of slide images. Our goal was to investigate whether morphological differences between sample types affected the performance of biopsy‐trained cancer detection CNN models when applied to radical prostatectomies and vice versa using multiple cohorts ( N = 1,000). Radical prostatectomies ( N = 100) and biopsies ( N = 50) were acquired from The University of Pennsylvania to train (80%) and validate (20%) a DenseNet CNN for biopsies (M B ), radical prostatectomies (M R ), and a combined dataset (M B+R ). On a tile level, M B and M R achieved F1 scores greater than 0.88 when applied to their own sample type but less than 0.65 when applied across sample types. On a whole‐slide level, models achieved significantly better performance on their own sample type compared to the alternative model ( p < 0.05) for all metrics. This was confirmed by external validation using digitized biopsy slide images from a clinical trial [NRG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)] (NRG/RTOG 0521, N = 750) via both qualitative and quantitative analyses ( p < 0.05). A comprehensive review of model outputs revealed morphologically driven decision making that adversely affected model performance. M B appeared to be challenged with the analysis of open gland structures, whereas M R appeared to be challenged with closed gland structures, indicating potential morphological variation between the training sets. These findings suggest that differences in morphology and heterogeneity necessitate the need for more tailored, sample‐specific (i.e. biopsy and surgical) machine learning models. © 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".