| Literature DB >> 35147848 |
Noriaki Hashimoto1, Kaho Ko2, Tatsuya Yokota2, Kei Kohno3,4, Masato Nakaguro5, Shigeo Nakamura3, Ichiro Takeuchi1,2, Hidekata Hontani6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For the image classification problem, the construction of appropriate training data is important for improving the generalization ability of the classifier in particular when the size of the training data is small. We propose a method that quantitatively evaluates the typicality of a hematoxylin-and-eosin (H&E)-stained tissue slide from a set of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains and applies the typicality to instance selection for the construction of classifiers that predict the subtype of malignant lymphoma to improve the generalization ability.Entities:
Keywords: Digital pathology; Image classification; Instance selection; Malignant lymphoma; Typicality
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35147848 PMCID: PMC9206633 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-021-02549-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 3.421
Fig. 1The illustration of the attention-based MIL-CNN used in our classification experiment. In the model, training is performed using a bag as an input, where an attention network can automatically compute the contribution of each image patch to the classification
Fig. 2A histogram of the usage of each IHC stain, wherein we can observe that important IHC stains such as CD20 are used often
The examples of typical and atypical instances for each subtype
| Instance | Subtype | Typicality | IHC stains |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | AITL | Typical | CD20, CD3, CD10, CD30, CD3epsilon, |
| CD79a, CD8, CD4, CD56 | |||
| B | AITL | Atypical | CD20, CD5, CD10, CD30, BCL2, |
| CD15, BCL6, CD3epsilon, MIB1,CD79a, | |||
| CCND1, CD7 | |||
| C | DLBCL | Typical | CD20, CD5, CD3, CD10, BCL2, BCL6, |
| MUM1, cmyc | |||
| D | DLBCL | Atypical | CD20, EBERISH, CD5, CD10, CD30, |
| CD15, MUM1, PAX5 | |||
| E | CHL | Typical | CD20, EBERISH, CD3, CD30, CD15, |
| TIA1, FDC, fascin, PAX5,granzymeB, | |||
| ALK1, perforin | |||
| F | CHL | Atypical | CD20, EBERISH, CD5, CD10, CD30, |
| BCL2, CD15, TIA1, CD3epsilon,FDC, | |||
| fascin, CD79a, CCND1, granzymeB |
The first column “Instance” indicates the instance in Fig. 4. Generally, atypical instances have redundant IHC stains owing to the difficulty of selecting IHC stains in the observation of H&E-stained tissue images
Fig. 3The instance selection method in our classification experiments. a Instance selection for testing data to validate the difficulty criteria of the classification using the same training data. b Instance selection for training data to confirm the improvement in generalization ability using typicality. c The baseline to be compared, that uses all the training data after the data splitting without any instance selection. Herein, the number of training data in (c) becomes larger than that in (b)
Fig. 4Left: The plots of low-dimensional IHC staining patterns embedded by MDS. The color of each dot indicates the subtype of each instance. We can observe that instances of the same subtype are clustered together, while the clusters of different subtypes are partially overlapped. The data in the overlapped regions have lower values of typicality. Right: The data corresponding to the instances listed in Table 1
The comparison of the classification accuracy and macro-F1 score by fivefold cross-validation, wherein the testing data was selected based on typicality
| Testing | Typical | Atypical |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.640 | |
| Macro-F1 | 0.618 |
Bold values in tables are the higher or highest evaluation measures in each setting
The confusion matrices of the classification result with instance selection for the testing data, wherein the classification performance was improved in the case comprising the use of typical WSIs as the testing data
| Predict | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AITL | DLBCL | CHL | ||
| AITL | 12 | 2 | 8 | |
| Correct | DLBCL | 2 | 28 | 2 |
| CHL | 7 | 5 | 20 | |
| AITL | 10 | 6 | 6 | |
| Correct | DLBCL | 3 | 26 | 3 |
| CHL | 10 | 3 | 19 | |
The comparison of the classification accuracy and macro-F1 score in fivefold cross-validation, wherein all instances in the dataset were tested
| Training | Baseline | Typical:Intermediate:Atypical | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3:2:1 | 3:1:2 | 2:3:1 | 2:1:3 | 1:3:2 | 1:2:3 | ||
| Accuracy | 0.664 | 0.611 | 0.637 | 0.634 | 0.630 | 0.649 | |
| Macro-F1 | 0.648 | 0.596 | 0.619 | 0.615 | 0.609 | 0.637 | |
Slides with different typicality were selected for the training data by changing the ratio of their number. “Typical:Intermediate:Atypical” denotes the ratio of the typical, intermediate, and atypical slides in the training data
Bold values in tables are the higher or highest evaluation measures in each setting
The confusion matrices of the classification result with instance selection for the training data, wherein the classification performance was improved in the case of the focus on typical WSIs in the instance selection of the training data
| Predict | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AITL | DLBCL | CHL | ||
| AITL | 38 | 8 | 21 | |
| Correct | DLBCL | 7 | 81 | 9 |
| CHL | 25 | 13 | 60 | |
| AITL | 35 | 6 | 26 | |
| Correct | DLBCL | 8 | 74 | 15 |
| CHL | 25 | 12 | 61 | |
Fig. 5The visualization results of the attention weights as heat maps. For each instance, an H&E-stained tissue image, a visualized attention weight, and a CD30 IHC-stained tissue image are presented, wherein the highly attention-weighted regions in the heat map correspond to the positive regions in the CD30 IHC-stained tissue image