Three-dimensional assessments are necessary to determine the true, spatially resolved composition of tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for spatially resolved cellular profiling using thinly cut sections have enabled in-depth quantitative tissue mapping to study inter-sample and intra-sample differences in normal human anatomy and disease onset and progression. These methods often profile extremely limited regions, which may impact the evaluation of heterogeneity due to tissue sub-sampling. Here, we applied CODA, a deep learning-based tissue mapping platform, to reconstruct the three-dimensional (3D) microanatomy of grossly normal and cancer-containing human pancreas biospecimens obtained from individuals who underwent pancreatic resection. To compare inter- and intra-sample heterogeneity, we assessed bulk and spatially resolved tissue composition in a cohort of two-dimensional (2D) whole slide images (WSIs) and a cohort of thick slabs of pancreas tissue that were digitally reconstructed in 3D from serial sections. To demonstrate the marked under sampling of 2D assessments, we simulated the number of WSIs and tissue microarrays (TMAs) necessary to represent the compositional heterogeneity of 3D data within 10% error to reveal that tens of WSIs and hundreds of TMA cores are sometimes needed. We show that spatial correlation of different pancreatic structures decay significantly within a span of microns, demonstrating that 2D histological sections may not be representative of their neighboring tissues. In sum, we demonstrate that 3D assessments are necessary to accurately assess tissue composition in normal and abnormal specimens and in order to accurately determine neoplastic content. These results emphasize the importance of intra-sample heterogeneity in tissue mapping efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".