Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294501›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2018

Diagnostic Performance of Deep Learning Algorithms Applied to Three Common Diagnoses in Dermatopathology.

Thomas George Olsen, B Hunter Jackson, Theresa Ann Feeser, Michael N Kent, John C Moad, Smita Krishnamurthy, Denise D Lunsford, Rajath E Soans

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas George OlsenDepartment of Dermatology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
B Hunter JacksonProscia Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Theresa Ann FeeserDermatopathology Laboratory of Central States, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Michael N KentDepartment of Dermatology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
John C MoadDepartment of Dermatology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Smita KrishnamurthyDepartment of Dermatology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Denise D LunsfordDermatopathology Laboratory of Central States, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Rajath E SoansProscia Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Central Dermatology · USWright State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence is advancing at an accelerated pace into clinical applications, providing opportunities for increased efficiency, improved accuracy, and cost savings through computer-aided diagnostics. Dermatopathology, with emphasis on pattern recognition, offers a unique opportunity for testing deep learning algorithms.

aimsThis study aims to determine the accuracy of deep learning algorithms to diagnose three common dermatopathology diagnoses.

methodsWhole slide images (WSI) of previously diagnosed nodular basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), dermal nevi, and seborrheic keratoses were annotated for areas of distinct morphology. Unannotated WSIs, consisting of five distractor diagnoses of common neoplastic and inflammatory diagnoses, were included in each training set. A proprietary fully convolutional neural network was developed to train algorithms to classify test images as positive or negative relative to ground truth diagnosis.

resultsArtificial intelligence system accurately classified 123/124 (99.45%) BCCs (nodular), 113/114 (99.4%) dermal nevi, and 123/123 (100%) seborrheic keratoses.

conclusionsArtificial intelligence using deep learning algorithms is a potential adjunct to diagnosis and may result in improved workflow efficiencies for dermatopathologists and laboratories.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencecomputational pathologycomputer-aided diagnosisdeep learning algorithmdermatopathologydigital pathologywhole slide images

Identifiers

PMID30294501
PMCPMC6166480
OpenAlexW2894398812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.