Automatically Score Tissue Images Like a Pathologist by Transfer Learning
Volume 2, Issue 3 (2024), pp. 330–338
Pub. online: 14 December 2023
Type: NextGen
Open Access
Accepted
2 November 2023
2 November 2023
Published
14 December 2023
14 December 2023
Abstract
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. Diagnosing cancer early on can save many lives. Pathologists have to look at tissue microarray (TMA) images manually to identify tumors, which can be time-consuming, inconsistent and subjective. Existing automatic algorithms either have not achieved the accuracy level of a pathologist or require substantial human involvements. A major challenge is that TMA images with different shapes, sizes, and locations can have the same score. Learning staining patterns in TMA images requires a huge number of images, which are severely limited due to privacy and regulation concerns in medical organizations. TMA images from different cancer types may share certain common characteristics, but combining them directly harms the accuracy due to heterogeneity in their staining patterns. Transfer learning is an emerging learning paradigm that allows borrowing strength from similar problems. However, existing approaches typically require a large sample from similar learning problems, while TMA images of different cancer types are often available in small sample size and further existing algorithms are limited to transfer learning from one similar problem. We propose a new transfer learning algorithm that could learn from multiple related problems, where each problem has a small sample and can have a substantially different distribution from the original one. The proposed algorithm has made it possible to break the critical accuracy barrier (the 75% accuracy level of pathologists), with a reported accuracy of 75.9% on breast cancer TMA images from the Stanford Tissue Microarray Database. It is supported by recent developments in transfer learning theory and empirical evidence in clustering technology. This will allow pathologists to confidently adopt automatic algorithms in recognizing tumors consistently with a higher accuracy in real time.
References
Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45(1) 5–32 (2001). MR3874153
Cai, T. and Wei, H. Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier. The Annals of Statistics 49(1) 100–128 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1214/20-AOS1949. MR4206671
Freund, Y. and Schapire, R. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Proceedings of the 13rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (1996). MR2920188
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. and Courville, A. Deep Learning. The MIT Press (2016). MR3617773
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. and Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5. MR1851606
Kpotufe, S. and Martinet, G. Marginal singularity and the benefits of labels in covariate-shift. The Annals of Statistics 49(6) 3299–3323 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-aos2084. MR4352531
Shafer, G. and Vovk, V. A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 371–421 (2008). MR2417240
Tzeng, E., Hoffman, J., Zhang, N., Saenko, K. and Darrell, T. Deep domain confusion: Maximizing for domain invariance (2014). arXiv:1412.3474
Yan, D., Wang, P., Knudsen, B. S., Linden, M. and Randolph, T. W. Statistical methods for tissue microarray images – algorithmic scoring and co-training. The Annals of Applied Statistics 6(3) 1280–1305 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOAS543. MR3012530