ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2019
Deep learning assisted mitotic counting for breast cancer.
Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The translational chasm in machine learning for triple-negative breast cancer: a quantitative landscape assessment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Automated Bergmann-Kliesch Score assessment in testicular biopsies using artificial intelligence-based whole-slide image analysis: a retrospective monocentric development and validation study.Basic and clinical andrology · 2026Article
- A Subphase-Labeled Mitotic Dataset for AI-powered Cell Division Analysis.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Staining normalization in histopathology: Method benchmarking using multicenter dataset.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive example selection for prototype based explainable mitosis detection in digital pathology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Supporting Histopathologic and Molecular Characterization of Gynecological Cancers: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Implementing digital pathology: qualitative and financial insights from eight leading European laboratories.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Optimization of Mitotic Index Quantification Using the Amnis ImageStream Imaging Flow Cytometer.Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI-Based Mitosis Detection for Breast Carcinoma in Digital Pathology: A Clinical Study on Routine Practice Integration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Powered Quality Assurance: Transforming Diagnostics, Surgery, and Patient Care-Innovations, Limitations, and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The current landscape of artificial intelligence in computational histopathology for cancer diagnosis.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Advances in Breast Cancer Care: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Pathology in Precision Medicine.European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Interpretable weakly-supervised learning through kernel density matrices: A digital pathology use case.PloS one · 2025Article
- Breast cancer survival prediction using an automated mitosis detection pipeline.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2024Article
- Current status and prospects of artificial intelligence in breast cancer pathology: convolutional neural networks to prospective Vision Transformers.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- OralEpitheliumDB: A Dataset for Oral Epithelial Dysplasia Image Segmentation and Classification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions.Cancer discovery · 2024Review
- Automated mitotic spindle hotspot counts are highly associated with clinical outcomes in systemically untreated early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2024Article
- Enhancing mitosis quantification and detection in meningiomas with computational digital pathology.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2024Article
- How to measure your microscope's HPF. A critical guide for residents.Pathologica · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As part of routine histological grading, for every invasive breast cancer the mitotic count is assessed by counting mitoses in the (visually selected) region with the highest proliferative activity. Because this procedure is prone to subjectivity, the present study compares visual mitotic counting with deep learning based automated mitotic counting and fully automated hotspot selection. Two cohorts were used in this study. Cohort A comprised 90 prospectively included tumors which were selected based on the mitotic frequency scores given during routine glass slide diagnostics. This pathologist additionally assessed the mitotic count in these tumors in whole slide images (WSI) within a preselected hotspot. A second observer performed the same procedures on this cohort. The preselected hotspot was generated by a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained to detect all mitotic figures in digitized hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) sections. The second cohort comprised a multicenter, retrospective TNBC cohort (n = 298), of which the mitotic count was assessed by three independent observers on glass slides. The same CNN was applied on this cohort and the absolute number of mitotic figures in the hotspot was compared to the averaged mitotic count of the observers. Baseline interobserver agreement for glass slide assessment in cohort A was good (kappa 0.689; 95% CI 0.580-0.799). Using the CNN generated hotspot in WSI, the agreement score increased to 0.814 (95% CI 0.719-0.909). Automated counting by the CNN in comparison with observers counting in the predefined hotspot region yielded an average kappa of 0.724. We conclude that manual mitotic counting is not affected by assessment modality (glass slides, WSI) and that counting mitotic figures in WSI is feasible. Using a predefined hotspot area considerably improves reproducibility. Also, fully automated assessment of mitotic score appears to be feasible without introducing additional bias or variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31222166What 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.