Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30917113›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

Evaluating reproducibility of AI algorithms in digital pathology with DAPPER.

Andrea Bizzego, Nicole Bussola, Marco Chierici, Valerio Maggio, Margherita Francescatto, Luca Cima, Marco Cristoforetti, Giuseppe Jurman, Cesare Furlanello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

9 authors.

Andrea BizzegoFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1586-8350
Nicole BussolaFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2609-4354
Marco ChiericiFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9791-9301
Valerio MaggioFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4824-893X
Margherita FrancescattoFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1232-7302
Luca CimaPathology Unit, Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy.
Marco CristoforettiFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0127-1342
Giuseppe JurmanFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2705-5728
Cesare FurlanelloFondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5384-3605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceSoftwareHistological TechniquesHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30917113
PMCPMC6467397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.