Submitted:
13 December 2023
Posted:
14 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
- performing the classification and augmentation in feature latent space allows the model to deal with the local and global information of gigapixel WSIs;
- working in feature latent space reduces the computational cost while preserving the class label of the input; and
- combining a two-stage augmentation process into an all-in-one model enables the network to generate and classify the WSIs during the training without a separate classifier, increasing the classification accuracy on the testing dataset.
2. Method
2.1. Grid-based Features Map Extraction
2.2. GFM Augmentation
2.2.1. Standard Data Augmentation
2.2.2. Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (cGAN)
- Discriminator Loss Real: this quantifies how well the discriminator correctly identifies real data as real.
- Discriminator Loss Fake: Quantifies how well the discriminator correctly identifies generated data as fake.
2.3. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Classifier
3. Experiments and results
3.1. Dataset
- Task 1: a 3-class WSI classification is required by grouping the original six tumor subtypes into three lesion types: Non-cancerous (PB+UDH), Pre-cancerous (ADH+FEA), and Cancerous (DCIS+IC).
- Task 2: a 6-class WSI classification is required to perform a fine-grained subtyping of the tumors within the WSIs. Six tumor subtypes have been considered: PB, UDH, ADH, FEA, DCIS, and IC.
3.2. Training Protocol
3.2.1. cGAN Training
3.2.2. Classifier training
3.3. Result and discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Huang, Y.; Zhao, W.; Wang, S.; Fu, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Yu, L. ConSlide: Asynchronous Hierarchical Interaction Transformer with Breakup-Reorganize Rehearsal for Continual Whole Slide Image Analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 21349–21360.
- Wetstein, S.C.; de Jong, V.M.; Stathonikos, N.; Opdam, M.; Dackus, G.M.; Pluim, J.P.; van Diest, P.J.; Veta, M. Deep learning-based breast cancer grading and survival analysis on whole-slide histopathology images. Scientific reports 2022, 12, 15102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalifa, N.E.; Loey, M.; Mirjalili, S. A comprehensive survey of recent trends in deep learning for digital images augmentation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 2022; 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Naveed, H.; Anwar, S.; Hayat, M.; Javed, K.; Mian, A. Survey: Image mixing and deleting for data augmentation. arXiv, 2021; arXiv:2106.07085. [Google Scholar]
- Ghiasi, G.; Cui, Y.; Srinivas, A.; Qian, R.; Lin, T.Y.; Cubuk, E.D.; Le, Q.V.; Zoph, B. Simple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for instance segmentation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 2918–2928.
- Wang, F.; Wang, H.; Wei, C.; Yuille, A.; Shen, W. CP 2: Copy-Paste Contrastive Pretraining for Semantic Segmentation. European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 499–515.
- Chen, Y.; Yang, X.H.; Wei, Z.; Heidari, A.A.; Zheng, N.; Li, Z.; Chen, H.; Hu, H.; Zhou, Q.; Guan, Q. Generative adversarial networks in medical image augmentation: A review. Computers in Biology and Medicine 2022, 144, 105382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlAmir, M.; AlGhamdi, M. The Role of generative adversarial network in medical image analysis: An in-depth survey. ACM Computing Surveys 2022, 55, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gecer, B.; Aksoy, S.; Mercan, E.; Shapiro, L.G.; Weaver, D.L.; Elmore, J.G. Detection and classification of cancer in whole slide breast histopathology images using deep convolutional networks. Pattern recognition 2018, 84, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Liu, C.; Li, T.; Zhou, Y. The whole slide breast histopathology image detection based on a fused model and heatmaps. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 2023, 82, 104532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brancati, N.; De Pietro, G.; Riccio, D.; Frucci, M. Gigapixel histopathological image analysis using attention-based neural networks. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 87552–87562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomita, N.; Abdollahi, B.; Wei, J.; Ren, B.; Suriawinata, A.; Hassanpour, S. Attention-based deep neural networks for detection of cancerous and precancerous esophagus tissue on histopathological slides. JAMA network open 2019, 2, e1914645–e1914645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tellez, D.; Litjens, G.; van der Laak, J.; Ciompi, F. Neural image compression for gigapixel histopathology image analysis. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 2019, 43, 567–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, P.; Lu, H.; Yang, B.; Ran, W. GAN-MVAE: A discriminative latent feature generation framework for generalized zero-shot learning. Pattern Recognition Letters 2022, 155, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Gao, R.; Sheng, Y.P.; Chen, B.; Li, S. SDAE-GAN: enable high-dimensional pathological images in liver cancer survival prediction with a policy gradient based data augmentation method. Medical image analysis 2020, 62, 101640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirza, M.; Osindero, S. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv, 2014; arXiv:1411.1784. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Xiang, J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, S.; Yang, Z.; Wang, M.H.; Zhang, J.; Yang, W.; Huang, J.; Han, X. SCL-WC: Cross-slide contrastive learning for weakly-supervised whole-slide image classification. Advances in neural information processing systems 2022, 35, 18009–18021. [Google Scholar]
- Marini, N.; Wodzinski, M.; Atzori, M.; Müller, H. A Multi-Task Multiple Instance Learning Algorithm to Analyze Large Whole Slide Images from Bright Challenge 2022. 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging Challenges (ISBIC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4.
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Ma, K.; Gupta, R.; Saltz, J.; Vakalopoulou, M.; Samaras, D. Gigapixel whole-slide images classification using locally supervised learning. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2022, pp. 192–201.
- Brancati, N.; Anniciello, A.M.; Pati, P.; Riccio, D.; Scognamiglio, G.; Jaume, G.; De Pietro, G.; Di Bonito, M.; Foncubierta, A.; Botti, G. ; others. BRACS: A dataset for breast carcinoma subtyping in h&e histology images. Database 2022, 2022, baac093. [Google Scholar]
- Macenko, M.; Niethammer, M.; Marron, J.S.; Borland, D.; Woosley, J.T.; Guan, X.; Schmitt, C.; Thomas, N.E. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. 2009 IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1107–1110.
- Neary-Zajiczek, L.; Beresna, L.; Razavi, B.; Pawar, V.; Shaw, M.; Stoyanov, D. Minimum resolution requirements of digital pathology images for accurate classification. Medical Image Analysis 2023, 89, 102891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayouf, M.S.; Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F. Curriculum Incremental Deep Learning on BreakHis DataSet. Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Computer Technology Applications, 2022, pp. 35–41.
- He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
- Kingma, D.P.; Ba, J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv, 2014; arXiv:1412.6980. [Google Scholar]
- Loshchilov, I.; Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv, 2017; arXiv:1711.05101. [Google Scholar]
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 |



| Non-cancerous | Pre-Cancerous | Cancerous | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PB | UDH | FEA | ADH | DCIS | IC | ||
| Training | 131 | 65 | 30 | 36 | 49 | 112 | 423 |
| Validation | 16 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 20 | 80 |
| Testing | 34 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 200 |
| Non-cancerous | Pre-Cancerous | Cancerous | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Dataset | 196 | 66 | 161 | 423 |
| Augmented Dataset | 1960 (196x10) | 1320 (66x20) | 1932(161x12) | 5212 |
| Experiment | F1-average | F1-Non-Cancerous | F1-Pre-Cancerous | F1-Cancerous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [19] | 65.3 | 68.0 | 54.0 | 74.2 |
|
WINM 1° rank |
71.6 | 72.5 | 62.3 | 80.0 |
|
WINM 2° rank |
69.6 | 70.8 | 52.7 | 85.3 |
| [18] | 65.0 | 71.8 | 51.6 | 71.7 |
|
Proposed Method |
69.5 | 74.0 | 59.5 | 75.2 |
| Experiment | F1-average | F1-Non-Cancerous | F1-Pre-Cancerous | F1-Cancerous |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT_NcGAN | 61.6 | 71.0 | 44.2 | 69.4 |
| NAT_cGAN | 62.4 | 70.5 | 47.8 | 68.9 |
| AT_3GAN | 62.1 | 66.7 | 48.2 | 71.3 |
|
Proposed Method |
69.5 | 74.0 | 59.5 | 75.2 |
| Experiment | F1-average | F1-PB | F1-UDH | F1-FEA | F1-ADH | F1-DCIS | F1-IC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [19] | 40.3 | 46.1 | 41.5 | 31.8 | 13.0 | 45.3 | 64.1 |
|
Proposed Method |
41.5 | 49.6 | 28.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 40.8 | 71.2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).