Back

Deep Learning in Automating Breast Cancer Diagnosis from Microscopy Images

Gu, Q.; Prodduturi, N.; Hart, S. N.

2023-06-16 pathology
10.1101/2023.06.15.23291437 medRxiv
Show abstract

ContextBreast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. With early diagnosis, some breast cancers are highly curable. However, the concordance rate of breast cancer diagnosis from histology slides by pathologists is unacceptably low. Classifying normal versus tumor breast tissues from microscopy images of breast histology is an ideal case to use for deep learning and could help to more reproducibly diagnose breast cancer. Since data preprocessing and hyperparameter configurations have impacts on breast cancer classification accuracies of deep learning models, training a deep learning classifier with appropriate data preprocessing approaches and optimized hyperparameter configurations could improve breast cancer classification accuracy. Methods and MaterialUsing 12 combinations of deep learning model architectures (i.e., including 5 non-specialized and 7 digital pathology-specialized model architectures), image data preprocessing, and hyperparameter configurations, the validation accuracy of tumor versus normal classification were calculated using the BreAst Cancer Histology (BACH) dataset. ResultsThe DenseNet201, a non-specialized model architecture, with transfer learning approach achieved 98.61% validation accuracy compared to only 64.00% for the digital pathology-specialized model architecture. ConclusionsThe combination of image data preprocessing approaches and hyperparameter configurations have a profound impact on the performance of deep neural networks for image classification. To identify a well-performing deep neural network to classify tumor versus normal breast histology, researchers should not only focus on developing new models specifically for digital pathology, since hyperparameter tuning for existing deep neural networks in the computer vision field could also achieve a high (often better) prediction accuracy.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.