ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Evaluating reproducibility of AI algorithms in digital pathology with DAPPER.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic ganglion cell detection for improving the efficiency and accuracy of hirschprung disease diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Human genetics across levels of biological organization.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Generating and evaluating synthetic data in digital pathology through diffusion models.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Self-supervised learning for characterising histomorphological diversity and spatial RNA expression prediction across 23 human tissue types.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Digital pathology: Revolutionizing oral and maxillofacial diagnostics.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- Synergies and Challenges in the Preclinical and Clinical Implementation of Pathology Artificial Intelligence Applications.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Review
- A Weakly Supervised Deep Learning Framework for Whole Slide Classification to Facilitate Digital Pathology in Animal Study.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Article
- Perineural invasion detection in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Deep learning predicts patients outcome and mutations from digitized histology slides in gastrointestinal stromal tumor.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Article
- Overcoming the challenges to implementation of artificial intelligence in pathology.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Decentralized federated learning through proxy model sharing.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Development and evaluation of a java-based deep neural network method for drug response predictions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Ten quick tips for computational analysis of medical images.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of deep learning in digital pathology whole slide image analysis.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Improving the Efficacy of Deep-Learning Models for Heart Beat Detection on Heterogeneous Datasets.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- Deep Neural Networks and Transfer Learning on a Multivariate Physiological Signal Dataset.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- Deep Learning Approaches and Applications in Toxicologic Histopathology: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Review
- Using Machine Learning for Predicting the Best Outcomes With Electrical Muscle Stimulation for Tremors in Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence is exponentially increasing its impact on healthcare. As deep learning is mastering computer vision tasks, its application to digital pathology is natural, with the promise of aiding in routine reporting and standardizing results across trials. Deep learning features inferred from digital pathology scans can improve validity and robustness of current clinico-pathological features, up to identifying novel histological patterns, e.g., from tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. In this study, we examine the issue of evaluating accuracy of predictive models from deep learning features in digital pathology, as an hallmark of reproducibility. We introduce the DAPPER framework for validation based on a rigorous Data Analysis Plan derived from the FDA's MAQC project, designed to analyze causes of variability in predictive biomarkers. We apply the framework on models that identify tissue of origin on 787 Whole Slide Images from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We test three different deep learning architectures (VGG, ResNet, Inception) as feature extractors and three classifiers (a fully connected multilayer, Support Vector Machine and Random Forests) and work with four datasets (5, 10, 20 or 30 classes), for a total of 53, 000 tiles at 512 × 512 resolution. We analyze accuracy and feature stability of the machine learning classifiers, also demonstrating the need for diagnostic tests (e.g., random labels) to identify selection bias and risks for reproducibility. Further, we use the deep features from the VGG model from GTEx on the KIMIA24 dataset for identification of slide of origin (24 classes) to train a classifier on 1, 060 annotated tiles and validated on 265 unseen ones. The DAPPER software, including its deep learning pipeline and the Histological Imaging-Newsy Tiles (HINT) benchmark dataset derived from GTEx, is released as a basis for standardization and validation initiatives in AI for digital pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.