CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 644AI in cancer detectionCell Image Analysis TechniquesDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting Cancer Metastases on Gigapixel Pathology Images

Open access
Liu, Yun, Gadepalli, Krishna, Norouzi, Mohammad, Dahl, George E., Kohlberger, Timo, Boyko, Aleksey, Venugopalan, Subhashini, Timofeev, Aleksei, Nelson, Philip Q., Corrado, Greg S., Hipp, Jason D., Peng, Lily, Stumpe, Martin C.·2017·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1703.02442arXiv 1703.02442
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Each year, the treatment decisions for more than 230,000 breast cancer patients in the U.S. hinge on whether the cancer has metastasized away from the breast. Metastasis detection is currently performed by pathologists reviewing large expanses of biological tissues. This process is labor intensive and error-prone. We present a framework to automatically detect and localize tumors as small as 100 x 100 pixels in gigapixel microscopy images sized 100,000 x 100,000 pixels. Our method leverages a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture and obtains state-of-the-art results on the Camelyon16 dataset in the challenging lesion-level tumor detection task. At 8 false positives per image, we detect 92.4% of the tumors, relative to 82.7% by the previous best automated approach. For comparison, a human pathologist attempting exhaustive search achieved 73.2% sensitivity. We achieve image-level AUC scores above 97% on both the Camelyon16 test set and an independent set of 110 slides. In addition, we discover that two slides in the Camelyon16 training set were erroneously labeled normal. Our approach could considerably reduce false negative rates in metastasis detection.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1703.02442

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [3]3. Apple, S.K.: Sentinel lymph node in breast cancer: Review article from a pathologists point of view. J. of Pathol. and Transl. Medicine 50(2), 83 (2016)
  2. [4]4. Bejnordi, B.E., et al.: Stain specific standardization of whole-slide histopathological images. IEEE Trans. on Medical Imaging 35(2), 404-415 (2016)
  3. [5]5. Bunch, P.C., et al.: A free response approach to the measurement and characterization of radiographic observer performance. Appl. of Opt. Instrum. in Medicine VI pp. 124-135 (1977)
  4. [6]6. Cire¸ san, D.C., et al.: Mitosis detection in breast cancer histology images with deep neural networks. Int. Conf. on Medical Image Comput. and Comput. Interv. (2013)
  5. [9]9. Gulshan, V., et al.: Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. J. of the Am. Medical Soc. 316(22), 2402-2410 (2016)
  6. [11]11. Ioffe, S., Szegedy, C.: Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (2015)
  7. [13]13. Kothari, S., et al.: Pathology imaging informatics for quantitative analysis of wholeslide images. J. of the Am. Medical Informatics Assoc. 20(6), 1099-1108 (2013)
  8. [14]14. Krizhevsky, A., et al.: Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst. pp. 1097-1105 (2012)
  9. [15]15. van der Laak, J.A., et al.: Hue-saturation-density model for stain recognition in digital images from transmitted light microscopy. Cytometry 39(4), 275-284 (2000)
  10. [19]19. Russakovsky, O., et al.: Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. of Comput. Vis. 115(3), 211-252 (2015)
  11. [22]22. Veta, M., et al.: Assessment of algorithms for mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images. Medical image analysis 20(1), 237-248 (2015)
  12. [24]24. Yosinski, J., et al.: How transferable are features in deep neural networks? Adv. in Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2014)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–644 of 644

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Y., Gadepalli, K., Norouzi, M., Dahl, G. E., Kohlberger, T., Boyko, A., Venugopalan, S., Timofeev, A., Nelson, P. Q., Corrado, G. S., Hipp, J. D., Peng, L., & Stumpe, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Verily Life Sciences LLC (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1703.02442
arXiv
1703.02442
OpenAlex
W2593345132
Cited by
506
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 14
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Keywords
tumor localization, Camelyon16, convolutional neural networks, automated histopathology, false positive reduction, slide-level classification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review