MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408205304 · doi:10.47852/bonviewjdsis52024868

Experts' Cognition-driven Safe Noisy Labels Learning for Precise Segmentation of Residual Tumor in Breast Cancer

2025· article· en· W4408205304 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Science and Intelligent Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBreast cancerMachine learningArtificial intelligenceCognitionConceptualizationSegmentationResidualGeneralizationNatural language processingCancerMedicineAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise segmentation of residual tumor in breast cancer (PSRTBC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a fundamental key technique in the treatment process of breast cancer. However, achieving PSRTBC is still a challenge, since the breast cancer tissue and tumor cells commonly have complex and varied morphological changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which inevitably increases the difficulty to produce a predictive model that has good generalization with usual supervised learning (SL). To alleviate this situation, in this paper, we propose an experts’ cognition-driven safe noisy label learning (ECDSNLL) approach. In the concept of safe noisy label learning, which is a typical type of safe weakly SL, ECDSNLL is constructed by integrating the pathology experts’ cognition about identifying residual tumor in breast cancer and the artificial intelligence experts’ cognition about data modeling with provided data basis. Experimental results show that, compared with usual SL, ECDSNLL can significantly improve the lower bound of a number of UNet variants with 2.42% and 4.1% respectively in recall and fIoU for PSRTBC, while being able to achieve improvements in mean value and upper bound as well. Received: 21 November 2024 | Revised: 10 January 2025 | Accepted: 23 January 2025 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to this work. Data Availability Statement Data available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Author Contribution Statement Yongquan Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Jie Chen: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Yani Wei: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Mohammad Alobaidi: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Hong Bu: Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.304 · 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