MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411975814 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15131699

Simplified Artificial Intelligence Terminology for Pathologists

2025· review· en· W4411975814 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatemeh Zabihollahy, Michael Mankaruos, Maxim Mohareb, Timothy Youssef, Yasaman Soleymani, George M. Yousef

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTerminologyComputer scienceGRASPDigital pathologyArtificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceData scienceManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expanding shift towards digital pathology in clinical practice globally highlights its potential to enhance patient care through artificial intelligence (AI)-powered, computer-assisted diagnostics. Effective communication between AI scientists and pathologists is crucial for this transformation, though their differing technical languages can pose challenges. The manuscript aims to offer simplified explanations of common AI terminology, along with practical examples and illustrations, to help pathologists better grasp AI concepts. This review is divided into the following sections: AI technologies and algorithms in computational pathology; frameworks for training AI models; nomenclature of image analysis; and public datasets for computational pathology research. These sections collectively provide a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape and resources in computational pathology. The manuscript fosters better communication between these fields and showcases the advantages of AI technologies in pathology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207