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

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
2
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.1%
5
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
6
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.5%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.5%
10
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
11
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.5%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
17
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
19
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
22
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
23
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
25
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%