Recognizing Epithelial Cells in Prostatic Glands Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming an integral part of pathological assessment and diagnostic procedures in modern pathology. As most prostate cancers (PCa) arise from glandular epithelial tissue, an AI-based methodology has been developed to recognize glandular epithelial nuclei in prostate biopsy tissue. An integrated machine-learning network, named GlandNet, was developed to correctly recognize the epithelial cells within prostate glands using cell-centric patches selected from the core biopsy specimens. Feulgen-Thionin (a DNA stoichiometric label) was used to stain biopsy sections (4–7 µm in thickness) from 82 active surveillance patients diagnosed with PCa. Images of these sections were human-annotated, and the resultant dataset consisted of 1,264,772 segmented, cell-centric nuclei patches, of which 449,879 were centered on epithelial gland nuclei from 110 needle biopsies (training set: n = 66; validation set: n = 22; and test set: n = 22). The training of GlandNet used semi-supervised machine-learning knowledge of the training and validation cohorts and integrated both human and AI predictions to enhance its performance on the test cohort. The performance was evaluated against a consensus deliberation from three observers. The GlandNet demonstrated an average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score of 94.1%, 95.7%, 87.8%, and 95.2%, respectively, when tested on the 20,735 glandular cells found in the three needle biopsies with the visually best consensus predictions. Conversely, the average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score were 90.9%, 86.4%, 94.0%, and 89.7% when assessed on 57,217 cells found in the three needle biopsies with the visually worst consensus predictions. GlandNet is a first-generation AI with an excellent ability to differentiate between epithelial and stromal nuclei in core biopsies from patients with early prostate cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".