基于全切片组织病理学图像的深度学习分类侵袭性与非侵袭性中枢性巨细胞肉芽肿

Deep learning for classification of aggressive versus non-aggressive central giant cell granuloma using whole-slide histopathology images

作者信息Marilena Vered, Anna Shnaiderman-Shapiro, Rozet Malouf, Ariel Hirschhorn, Amos Buchner, Shoshana Reiter, Lazar Kats
PMID40576733
发布时间2026-08
DOI10.1007/s00428-025-04160-z

实验完整度

研究涉及临床样本收集、深度学习模型训练与评估,但主要结果是模型性能不佳,没有功能验证或机制验证,实验完整度低。

主要模型

H&E染色全切片图像(来自CGCG病变组织)

重点核对

侵袭性组与非侵袭性组的分类标准(皮质扩张/穿孔、牙根吸收/移位、复发) 训练/验证/测试数据划分比例(80/20/100) 数据增强参数(随机旋转±30°,翻转,缩放0.8-1.2) 模型训练参数(100轮,学习率0.001,批次大小32) 评估指标(AUC 0.52,敏感性54%,特异性50%)

摘要

Microscopic images of aggressive and non-aggressive cases of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) were analyzed by deep learning algorithms in order to assess its potential as a tool in predicting the biological behavior of CGCG. CGCGs with cortical expansion/perforation, tooth resorption/displacement, or recurrence were classified as aggressive (A-group; N = 48), CGCGs without these features as non-aggressive (N-group; N = 39). Data on patient age, gender, and jaw location were collected. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained sections were scanned at × 10 magnification, yielding 9982 sections (5236 A-group, 4746 N-group). After excluding artifacts, 4272 sections (2629 A-group, 1643 N-group) were used to train a ResNet-50 model pre-trained on ImageNet. Data augmentation included random rotation, flipping, and zooming. Model was trained for 100 epochs with an 80/20 train/validation split and tested on 100 images (50 A-group, 50 N-group). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis with area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity was performed; t-test and chi-square test were used for age and frequency (p < 0.05). AUC was 52%, sensitivity 54%, and specificity 50%. Mean age of patients in A-group was lower than in N-groups (32.6 ± 19.98 years and 42.2 ± 21.58 years, respectively; p = 0.038). F:M ratio was 1:1 in both groups. Mandible was twofold more frequently than maxilla in both groups. This pioneering study to differentiate between aggressive and non-aggressive CGCGs based on whole microscopic sections using a deep machine learning model was not successful, probably due to lack of specific segmentations and technical staining issues. Further investigation with advanced preprocessing is needed to enhance model performance and clinical utility.

实验结论

提炼研究问题、关键发现与证据,快速把握文章的核心贡献。

研究问题
深度学习方法能否基于H&E全切片图像有效区分侵袭性与非侵袭性中枢性巨细胞肉芽肿?
核心机制
文中未明确说明
主要证据
在100张图像(50张侵袭性,50张非侵袭性)的测试集上,ResNet-50模型获得AUC 52%、敏感性54%、特异性50%,与随机猜测相当;患者年龄在侵袭组(平均32.6岁)与非侵袭组(平均42.2岁)间有显著差异(p=0.038)。
研究意义
研究表明该深度学习模型未能成功区分侵袭性与非侵袭性CGCG,提示未来的研究需采用更先进的预处理方法来提高模型性能,以期最终增强临床实用性。

研究路径

按研究推进顺序梳理实验设计、验证步骤与关键观察。

1

数据收集与分类

收集CGCG病例并依据临床特征将其分类为侵袭性与非侵袭性,以建立训练数据集。

回顾性收集2000-2022年间口腔病理实验室的CGCG病例,依据皮质扩张/穿孔、牙根吸收/移位、复发等特征分类,侵袭性组48例,非侵袭性组39例。

2

全切片扫描与ROI分割

将组织切片数字化并提取包含CGCG组织的区域,用于模型训练和测试。

使用BestScope BS2085显微镜在10×放大下扫描H&E染色切片,使用配套软件拼接为全切片图像,手动分割CGCG组织ROI。

3

数据预处理与增强

标准化图像尺寸并增加数据多样性,以提高模型泛化能力。

将图像归一化到224×224像素,应用随机旋转、翻转、缩放进行数据增强,并进行人工质量筛选。

4

深度学习模型训练与评估

训练ResNet-50模型以分类侵袭性与非侵袭性CGCG,并评估其性能。

使用预训练在ImageNet上的ResNet-50模型进行迁移学习,训练100轮,并在独立测试集上评估,计算AUC、敏感性、特异性等指标。

研究方法

按研究目的归类文中使用的方法,便于定位所需技术。

产品清单

实验环节名称品牌货号
BS2085电动显微镜BestScope--
BestScope v2.1.3软件BestScope--
OpenCV v4.5.3----
NumPy v1.19.2----
ImageJ----
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GPUNVIDIA--
Keras v2.4.3----
TensorFlow v2.3.0----
MedCalc统计软件14.8.1版MedCalc Software Ltd--

关键环节

汇总复现实验时建议重点确认的条件及原文阅读提示。

环节核对要点
数据收集与分类
病例纳入与排除标准、侵袭性与非侵袭性分类的具体定义(皮质扩张/穿孔、牙根吸收/移位、复发)、病例数量(A组48例,N组39例)
阅读提示:Methods部分:Study design, Data sources
切片扫描与ROI分割
扫描放大倍数(10×)、切片数量(9982个区域,筛选后4272个)、ROI分割方法(手动分割)
阅读提示:Methods部分:Data preprocessing, Fig. 1
数据预处理与增强
图像尺寸(224×224像素)、数据增强参数(旋转±30°,翻转,缩放0.8-1.2)、排除标准(人工视觉检查)、使用的软件(OpenCV, NumPy)
阅读提示:Methods部分:Data preprocessing, Fig. 2
模型训练
模型架构(ResNet-50)、预训练权重(ImageNet)、训练轮数(100轮)、优化器(SGD学习率0.001动量0.9)、批次大小(32)、数据划分(80/20/100)
阅读提示:Methods部分:Neural networks architecture, Training, Data partitions
模型评估
测试集(100张图像,50张A组,50张N组)、评估指标(AUC, 敏感性, 特异性)、95%CI计算方法(DeLong法)、统计显著性(z检验,p<0.05)
阅读提示:Methods部分:Evaluation metrics, Statistical analysis, Fig. 4