Back

MOSAIC: Explainable AI for Reproducible Histologic Grading and Prognostic Stratification in Breast Cancer

Sonpatki, P.; Gupta, S.; Biswas, A.; Patil, S.; Tyagi, S.; Balakrishnan, L.; Mistry, H.; Doshi, P.; Jagadale, K.; Shelke, P.; Parikh, L.; Shah, M.; Bharadwaj, R.; Desai, S.; Kulkarni, M.; Koppiker, C. B.; Prabhu, J.; Kachchhi, U.; Shah, N.

2026-03-18 pathology
10.64898/2026.03.11.26348043 medRxiv
Show abstract

Nottingham histologic grading is essential for breast cancer prognostication but suffers from inter-observer variability in assessing mitotic activity, nuclear pleomorphism, and tubule formation. We developed MOSAIC (Mammary Oncology Spatial Analysis and Intelligent Classification), an explainable AI framework designed to perform component-wise grading by independently modeling these three histologic features. Model outputs were calibrated using a two-phase pathology study to establish clinically reproducible scoring thresholds and were subsequently evaluated across public datasets and multi-institutional Indian cohorts. MOSAIC demonstrated robust performance, with AI-derived grades providing independent prognostic information (HR >= 1.8 in two datasets, p = < 0.001) and improved survival stratification compared to traditional methods. In pathologist calibration studies, AI-assisted scoring significantly reduced variability, specifically achieving near-perfect agreement in mitotic scoring with a weighted {kappa} up to 0.98. Accuracy and Cohens kappa ({kappa}) analysis further characterized the models technical performance across components: Tubule formation showed the highest agreement (Accuracy >= 0.6607, {kappa} = 0.549), followed by overall Grade (Accuracy = 0.5637, {kappa} = 0.539) and Mitotic activity (Accuracy = 0.4985, {kappa} = 0.4), while Nuclear pleomorphism proved the most challenging (Accuracy = 0.3303, {kappa} = 0.271). Comparative survival models confirmed that AI-derived grades were more significant predictors of risk than manual pathologist-assigned grades, with the AI model yielding a superior global p-value (5.9 x 10-7) and lower AIC (769.61). These results indicate that MOSAIC enables reproducible, interpretable grading by decomposing assessment into pathology-aligned components. By enhancing consistency while preserving prognostic relevance, this framework supports explainable AI as a viable assistive tool for routine breast cancer pathology.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
11.9%
4
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.8%
6
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
7
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
8
Journal of Pathology Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
9
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
10
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.0%
13
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
16
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
17
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
19
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
22
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%