MacNet: An End-to-End Manifold-Constrained Adaptive Clustering Network for Interpretable Whole Slide Image Classification
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China · Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Xinjiang 830011, China · Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA · School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, SAR China
Abstract
Whole slide images (WSIs) are the gold standard for pathological diagnosis and sub-typing. Current main-stream two-step frameworks employ offline feature encoders trained without domain-specific knowledge. Among them, attention-based multiple instance learning (MIL) methods are outcome-oriented and offer limited interpretability. Clustering-based approaches can provide explainable decision-making process but suffer from high dimension features and semantically ambiguous centroids. To this end, we propose an end-to-end MIL framework that integrates Grassmann re-embedding and manifold adaptive clustering, where the manifold geometric structure facilitates robust clustering results. Furthermore, we design a prior knowledge guiding proxy instance labeling and aggregation strategy to approximate patch labels and focus on pathologically relevant tumor regions. Experiments on multicentre WSI datasets demonstrate that: 1) our cluster-incorporated model achieves superior performance in both grading accuracy and interpretability; 2) end-to-end learning refines better feature representations and it requires acceptable computation resources.
Figures & tables
| Models | AMU-LSCC | AMU-CSCC | CAMELYON16 | DHMC-LUNG | |||||
| ACC | AUC | ACC | AUC | ACC | AUC | ACC | AUC | ||
| Swin-T on ImageNet-11k | ABMIL (ICML’18) | 0.6739 | 0.7888 | 0.8302 | 0.9547 | 0.7429 | 0.7918 | 0.7333 | 0.8123 |
| CLAM-SB (N.B.E.’21) | 0.6957 | 0.8367 | 0.8302 | 0.9581 | 0.7429 | 0.7478 | 0.7556 | 0.7783 | |
| CLAM-MB (N.B.E.’21) | 0.6812 | 0.8031 | 0.8774 | 0.9336 | 0.7429 | 0.7339 | 0.7333 | 0.7684 | |
| TransMIL (ICCV’21) | 0.8261 | 0.9021 | 0.8868 | 0.9521 | 0.7429 | 0.6898 | 0.7333 | 0.8084 | |
| DTFD-MIL (CVPR’22) | 0.5435 | 0.7245 | 0.8113 | 0.9036 | 0.7143 | 0.7306 | 0.7333 | 0.8084 | |
| Models | AMU-LSCC | CAMELYON16 | ||
| ACC | AUC | ACC | AUC | |
| ACMIL-MHA | 0.8551 | 0.9219 | – | – |
| DGR-MIL | – | – | 0.8286 | 0.8253 |
| baseline | 0.8696 | 0.9567 | 0.8286 | 0.8286 |
| + L1-KMeans | 0.8986 | 0.9648 | 0.8857 | 0.8727 |
| + L2-KMeans | 0.8913 | 0.9598 | 0.8286 | 0.8808 |
Histopathology Image Classification
Histopathology image classification uses computational models to identify tissue types, tumors, grades, and biomarkers from stained pathology images.
See all 144 papers