MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7081908127 · doi:10.11159/icbb25.160

BARG: A Boosted Adaptive Radial Proximity Method for Graph Modelling in Breast Cancer Hormonal Status Classification

2025· article· en· W7081908127 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerGraphPattern recognition (psychology)Boosting (machine learning)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) perform best on homophilic graphs, where connected nodes share similar features; however, histopathology images pose a challenge due to their heterogeneous tissue patterns and diverse morphological structures.In such images, ensuring homophily is crucial because, in non-homophilic graphs, message passing can cause oversmoothing, where features from dissimilar tissue regions become mixed, reducing the ability to distinguish distinct patterns.To address this, we introduce Boosted Adaptive Radius Graph (BARG), a novel graph modelling strategy tailored for Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E)-stained Tissue MicroArray (TMA) images.BARG improves upon the traditional Fixed Radius Graph (FRG) approach by incorporating an adaptive, tissue-specific edge threshold and a two-hop edge promotion mechanism to enhance message passing and maintain connectivity without compromising homophily.The adaptive threshold, termed Adaptive Radial Proximity (ARP), is determined for each graph using statistical analysis of Local Density Features (LDFs) derived from FRG-based graphs and is further refined using a globally optimised scaling factor across the dataset.We evaluate BARG using a dataset of 1000 TMA images with balanced positive and negative samples for training and a test set of 554 images (287 positive and 257 negative), with each patient contributing one image.Graph node features are extracted via a pre-trained VGG16 Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) by processing small image patches centred at nucleus detection peaks.Compared to the FRG-based models, BARG yields notable performance gains, achieving 78% accuracy, 75% sensitivity, and 81% specificity, marking a 4% improvement in accuracy and an 8% increase in sensitivity.BARG also reaches an AUC-ROC of 0.85, a 3% enhancement over FRG, while preserving structural and contextual tissue relevance.These results position BARG as a robust, scalable solution for graph modelling in histopathology image analysis, suitable for broader applications in computational 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueProceedings of the World Congress on New TechnologiesSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207