Cargando…
Independent assessment of a deep learning system for lymph node metastasis detection on the Augmented Reality Microscope
Several machine learning algorithms have demonstrated high predictive capability in the identification of cancer within digitized pathology slides. The Augmented Reality Microscope (ARM) has allowed these algorithms to be seamlessly integrated within the pathology workflow by overlaying their infere...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36605116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100142 |
Sumario: | Several machine learning algorithms have demonstrated high predictive capability in the identification of cancer within digitized pathology slides. The Augmented Reality Microscope (ARM) has allowed these algorithms to be seamlessly integrated within the pathology workflow by overlaying their inferences onto its microscopic field of view in real time. We present an independent assessment of the LYmph Node Assistant (LYNA) models, state-of-the-art algorithms for the identification of breast cancer metastases in lymph node biopsies, optimized for usage on the ARM. We assessed the models on 40 whole slide images at the commonly used objective magnifications of 10×, 20×, and 40×. We analyzed their performance across clinically relevant subclasses of tissue, including breast cancer, lymphocytes, histiocytes, blood, and fat. Each model obtained overall AUC values of approximately 0.98, accuracy values of approximately 0.94, and sensitivity values above 0.88 at classifying small regions of a field of view as benign or cancerous. Across tissue subclasses, the models performed most accurately on fat and blood, and least accurately on histiocytes, germinal centers, and sinus. The models also struggled with the identification of isolated tumor cells, especially at lower magnifications. After testing, we reviewed the discrepancies between model predictions and ground truth to understand the causes of error. We introduce a distinction between proper and improper ground truth for analysis in cases of uncertain annotations. Taken together, these methods comprise a novel approach for exploratory model analysis over complex anatomic pathology data in which precise ground truth is difficult to establish. |
---|