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 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.5%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.4%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
5
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
6
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
12
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
13
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
14
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
22
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%