MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409630493 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2025-7442

Abstract 7442: Transforming breast cancer treatment decisions: AI tools improve Ki67 risk assessments with 90 pathologists

2025· article· en· W4409630493 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Dy, Ngoc-Nhu Jennifer Nguyen, Melanie Dawe, Dimitrios Androutsos, Susan J. Done, April Khademi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyCancerRisk assessmentInternal medicineGynecologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A Ki67 proliferation index (PI) of ≥20% determines high-risk status and guides treatment decisions in HR+/HER2− early breast cancer. The Ki67 PI, defined as the ratio of Ki67+ tumor cells to total malignant cells, is labor-intensive and subjective to score. AI support is necessary for routine and reliable clinical use. This is the first large-scale, international study on AI-aided Ki67 PI risk assessments in breast cancer. Ninety pathologists scored the continuous PI from 0% to 100% for 10 breast cancer tissue microarrays (TMA) with and without AI support. The AI tool provided a continuous PI and a Ki67+/- tumor nuclei overlay. The AI tool was developed and validated independently of the pathologists and data used in this study (PMID: 38218973). Using gold-standard manual counts, two pathologists established the ground-truth (GT) PI scores for each TMA, ranging from 7% to 28%. The pathologists’ PI scores were classified into low (<20%) and high risk (≥20%). The risk classification accuracy, sensitivity and specificity relative to the GT were obtained for manual and AI-aided scores, yielding 900 paired classification metrics (90 pathologists × 10 TMAs). Table 1 summarizes the classification metrics showing improvements with AI support for all demographics. The AI tool achieved 100% risk classification accuracy. Manual misclassification and AI-aided correction rates are also summarized in Table 1. The overall manual misclassification rate was 26%, and AI support successfully corrected 95% of these cases. The McNemar’s test, a nonparametric statistical test for paired binary data, assessed statistical differences in risk classification between manual and AI-aided scoring, an asterisk denotes significance (p<0.05). AI support can improve the clinical reliability of PI scoring for risk classification and treatment decisions. AI integration into routine practice can ensure consistent Ki67 use, improving drug response predictions and patient outcomes. Citation Format: Amanda Dy, Ngoc-Nhu Jennifer Nguyen, Melanie Dawe, Dimitrios Androutsos, Susan Done, April Khademi. Transforming breast cancer treatment decisions: AI tools improve Ki67 risk assessments with 90 pathologists [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7442.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207