Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32622359›Full record

ArticleDiagnostic pathology2020

Accuracy and efficiency of an artificial intelligence tool when counting breast mitoses.

Liron Pantanowitz, Douglas Hartman, Yan Qi, Eun Yoon Cho, Beomseok Suh, Kyunghyun Paeng, Rajiv Dhir, Pamela Michelow, Scott Hazelhurst, Sang Yong Song and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Use of AI Histopathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. An Evaluation Into the Robustness of Grading of Pleural Mesothelioma Outside of Specialist Centres.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

11 authors.

Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Pavilion, Suite 201, 5150 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. lpantanowitz@gmail.com.
Douglas HartmanDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Pavilion, Suite 201, 5150 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA.
Yan QiSchool of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Eun Yoon ChoDepartment of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Beomseok SuhLunit, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyunghyun PaengLunit, Seoul, South Korea.
Rajiv DhirDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Pavilion, Suite 201, 5150 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA.
Pamela MichelowDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, University of the Witwatersrand and National Health Laboratory Services, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Scott HazelhurstSchool of Electrical & Information Engineering and Sydney Brenner Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sang Yong SongDepartment of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Soo Youn ChoDepartment of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningMitotic IndexBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedArtificial intelligenceBreastCarcinomaCountingDigital pathologyInformaticsMitosisTumor gradeWhole slide imaging

Identifiers

PMID32622359
PMCPMC7335442

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.