MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416085464 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.1022

PATH-70. Neuropath-IHC: a deep neural network for virtual immunohistochemistry from digital whole slide images of CNS tumors

2025· article· en· W4416085464 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher H. Dampier, Fnu Lalchungnunga, Danh-Tai Hoang, Eldad D. Shulman, Zied Abdullaev, Bochong Li, Zhirui Luo, Omkar Singh, Zhichao Wu, Thomas M. Pearce, Daniel F. Marker, Craig Horbinski, Calixto‐Hope G. Lucas, Patrick J. Cimino, MacLean P. Nasrallah, Martha Quezado, Hye‐Jung Chung, Leeor Yefet, Gelareh Zadeh, Sebastian Brandner, Eytan Ruppin, Kenneth Aldape

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryInterpretabilityOLIG2GlioblastomaSensitivity (control systems)Gene expressionLineage markers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Computer vision now enables deep learning models to link histopathologic features to molecular features in a quantitative manner not previously achievable by human pathologists. However, human interpretability is often limited. We trained a deep neural network to predict gene expression from digital whole slide images (WSIs) using 848 central nervous system (CNS) tumors with paired WSI and RNA-sequencing data. We used inferred RNA expression levels as a surrogate for protein expression of the CNS tumor lineage markers GFAP, OLIG2, and SSTR2, as well as the proliferation marker MKI67 (Ki67). We established thresholds for categorizing the inferred expression levels as positive or negative based on levels observed in cross-validation testing in select tumor types to approximate routine clinical interpretation of immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. We tested the sensitivity and specificity of our ‘virtual’ IHC on an independent, multi-institutional cohort of over 2,000 CNS tumors with objective diagnostic labels derived from DNA methylation-based tumor classification. As a dichotomous variable, inferred GFAP expression showed a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 99% as a glial marker in a cohort of gliomas and meningiomas. In the same cohort, OLIG2 showed a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 97% as a glial marker, while SSTR2 showed a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 97% as a marker of meningioma. In a cohort of ependymomas and gliomas, virtual IHC for OLIG2 showed a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 82% in distinguishing ependymomas from gliomas. Finally, in a cohort of gliomas, inferred expression of MKI67 demonstrated a trend consistent with what would be expected by actual IHC, with increasing MKI67 expression with increasing tumor grade. Our model provides the basis for a human interpretable and clinically applicable deep neural network to aid human pathologists in the diagnosis and grading of CNS tumors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicAI in cancer detection→French-language works237,207→