Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36114214›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Multiclass classification of breast cancer histopathology images using multilevel features of deep convolutional neural network.

Zabit Hameed, Begonya Garcia-Zapirain, José Javier Aguirre, Mario Arturo Isaza-Ruget

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Uncertainty Estimation for Tumor Prediction with Unlabeled Data.Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Workshops · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zabit HameedeVida Research Group, University of Deusto, Bilbao, 48007, Spain. zabithameed@deusto.es.
Begonya Garcia-ZapiraineVida Research Group, University of Deusto, Bilbao, 48007, Spain.
José Javier AguirreBioaraba Health Research Institute, Oncology Diagnostics and Therapeutics Area, Department of Pathological Anatomy, University Hospital of Alava, Vitoria, 01009, Spain.
Mario Arturo Isaza-RugetFundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, 110131, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is a common malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. Its early diagnosis can significantly reduce the morbidity and mortality rates in women. To this end, histopathological diagnosis is usually followed as the gold standard approach. However, this process is tedious, labor-intensive, and may be subject to inter-reader variability. Accordingly, an automatic diagnostic system can assist to improve the quality of diagnosis. This paper presents a deep learning approach to automatically classify hematoxylin-eosin-stained breast cancer microscopy images into normal tissue, benign lesion, in situ carcinoma, and invasive carcinoma using our collected dataset. Our proposed model exploited six intermediate layers of the Xception (Extreme Inception) network to retrieve robust and abstract features from input images. First, we optimized the proposed model on the original (unnormalized) dataset using 5-fold cross-validation. Then, we investigated its performance on four normalized datasets resulting from Reinhard, Ruifrok, Macenko, and Vahadane stain normalization. For original images, our proposed framework yielded an accuracy of 98% along with a kappa score of 0.969. Also, it achieved an average AUC-ROC score of 0.998 as well as a mean AUC-PR value of 0.995. Specifically, for in situ carcinoma and invasive carcinoma, it offered sensitivity of 96% and 99%, respectively. For normalized images, the proposed architecture performed better for Makenko normalization compared to the other three techniques. In this case, the proposed model achieved an accuracy of 97.79% together with a kappa score of 0.965. Also, it attained an average AUC-ROC score of 0.997 and a mean AUC-PR value of 0.991. Especially, for in situ carcinoma and invasive carcinoma, it offered sensitivity of 96% and 99%, respectively. These results demonstrate that our proposed model outperformed the baseline AlexNet as well as state-of-the-art VGG16, VGG19, Inception-v3, and Xception models with their default settings. Furthermore, it can be inferred that although stain normalization techniques offered competitive performance, they could not surpass the results of the original dataset.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinomaCarcinoma in SituEosine Yellowish-(YS)FemaleHematoxylinHumansNeural Networks, ComputerEosine Yellowish-(YS)Hematoxylin

Identifiers

PMID36114214
PMCPMC9649689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.