ArticleDiagnostic pathology2020
Accuracy and efficiency of an artificial intelligence tool when counting breast mitoses.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Assisted Scoring Improves Interobserver Agreement in Breast Cancer Biomarker Evaluation.Cancers · 2026Article
- Decoding (digital) histopathology: The building blocks for computational researchers.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- How artificial intelligence applied to digital pathology could guide treatment personalization in breast cancer.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence as an Assistive Tool in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis in the Digital Era.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluating AI-Based Mitosis Detection for Breast Carcinoma in Digital Pathology: A Clinical Study on Routine Practice Integration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
- An Evaluation Into the Robustness of Grading of Pleural Mesothelioma Outside of Specialist Centres.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in breast cancer diagnosis: A systematic literature review.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2025Review
- Current status and prospects of artificial intelligence in breast cancer pathology: convolutional neural networks to prospective Vision Transformers.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Breast cancer survival prediction using an automated mitosis detection pipeline.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2024Article
- Article
- Why we should not mistake accuracy of medical AI for efficiency.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence's impact on breast cancer pathology: a literature review.Diagnostic pathology · 2024Review
- Inflamed immune phenotype predicts favorable clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy across multiple cancer types.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2024Article
- AI improves accuracy, agreement and efficiency of pathologists for Ki67 assessments in breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Synergies and Challenges in the Preclinical and Clinical Implementation of Pathology Artificial Intelligence Applications.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence-powered spatial analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for prediction of prognosis in resected colon cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mitotic count in breast carcinoma is an important prognostic marker. Unfortunately substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation exists when pathologists manually count mitotic figures. Artificial intelligence (AI) coupled with whole slide imaging offers a potential solution to this problem. The aim of this study was to accordingly critique an AI tool developed to quantify mitotic figures in whole slide images of invasive breast ductal carcinoma.
methodsA representative H&E slide from 320 breast invasive ductal carcinoma cases was scanned at 40x magnification. Ten expert pathologists from two academic medical centers labeled mitotic figures in whole slide images to train and validate an AI algorithm to detect and count mitoses. Thereafter, 24 readers of varying expertise were asked to count mitotic figures with and without AI support in 140 high-power fields derived from a separate dataset. Their accuracy and efficiency of performing these tasks were calculated and statistical comparisons performed.
resultsFor each experience level the accuracy, precision and sensitivity of counting mitoses by users improved with AI support. There were 21 readers (87.5%) that identified more mitoses using AI support and 13 reviewers (54.2%) that decreased the quantity of falsely flagged mitoses with AI. More time was spent on this task for most participants when not provided with AI support. AI assistance resulted in an overall time savings of 27.8%.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that pathology end-users were more accurate and efficient at quantifying mitotic figures in digital images of invasive breast carcinoma with the aid of AI. Higher inter-pathologist agreement with AI assistance suggests that such algorithms can also help standardize practice. Not surprisingly, there is much enthusiasm in pathology regarding the prospect of using AI in routine practice to perform mundane tasks such as counting mitoses.
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.