Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34881099›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2021

A Pathologist-Annotated Dataset for Validating Artificial Intelligence: A Project Description and Pilot Study.

Sarah N Dudgeon, Si Wen, Matthew G Hanna, Rajarsi Gupta, Mohamed Amgad, Manasi Sheth, Hetal Marble, Richard Huang, Markus D Herrmann, Clifford H Szu and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Reproducible Reporting of the Collection and Evaluation of Annotations for Artificial Intelligence Models.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Recommendations on compiling test datasets for evaluating artificial intelligence solutions in pathology.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  8. BRACS: A Dataset for BReAst Carcinoma Subtyping in H&E Histology Images.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Incorporation of TILs in daily breast cancer care: how much evidence can we bear?Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

23 authors.

Sarah N DudgeonDivision of Imaging Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
Si WenDivision of Imaging Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
Matthew G HannaMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Rajarsi GuptaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Mohamed AmgadDepartment of Pathology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Manasi ShethDivision of Biostatistics, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
Hetal MarbleDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Richard HuangDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Markus D HerrmannDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Clifford H SzuArrive Bio, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Darick TongArrive Bio, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Bruce WernessArrive Bio, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Evan SzuArrive Bio, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Denis LarsimontDepartment of Pathology, Institute Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Anant MadabhushiLouis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Evangelos HytopoulosiRhythm Technologies Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Weijie ChenDivision of Imaging Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.
Rajendra SinghNorthwell Health and Zucker School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Steven N HartDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ashish SharmaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Joel SaltzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Roberto SalgadoDivision of Research, Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Brandon D GallasDivision of Imaging Diagnostics and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, United States Food and Drug Administration, White Oak, MD, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeValidating artificial intelligence algorithms for clinical use in medical images is a challenging endeavor due to a lack of standard reference data (ground truth). This topic typically occupies a small portion of the discussion in research papers since most of the efforts are focused on developing novel algorithms. In this work, we present a collaboration to create a validation dataset of pathologist annotations for algorithms that process whole slide images. We focus on data collection and evaluation of algorithm performance in the context of estimating the density of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in breast cancer.

methodsWe digitized 64 glass slides of hematoxylin- and eosin-stained invasive ductal carcinoma core biopsies prepared at a single clinical site. A collaborating pathologist selected 10 regions of interest (ROIs) per slide for evaluation. We created training materials and workflows to crowdsource pathologist image annotations on two modes: an optical microscope and two digital platforms. The microscope platform allows the same ROIs to be evaluated in both modes. The workflows collect the ROI type, a decision on whether the ROI is appropriate for estimating the density of sTILs, and if appropriate, the sTIL density value for that ROI.

resultsIn total, 19 pathologists made 1645 ROI evaluations during a data collection event and the following 2 weeks. The pilot study yielded an abundant number of cases with nominal sTIL infiltration. Furthermore, we found that the sTIL densities are correlated within a case, and there is notable pathologist variability. Consequently, we outline plans to improve our ROI and case sampling methods. We also outline statistical methods to account for ROI correlations within a case and pathologist variability when validating an algorithm.

conclusionWe have built workflows for efficient data collection and tested them in a pilot study. As we prepare for pivotal studies, we will investigate methods to use the dataset as an external validation tool for algorithms. We will also consider what it will take for the dataset to be fit for a regulatory purpose: study size, patient population, and pathologist training and qualifications. To this end, we will elicit feedback from the Food and Drug Administration via the Medical Device Development Tool program and from the broader digital pathology and AI community. Ultimately, we intend to share the dataset, statistical methods, and lessons learned.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence validationmedical image analysispathologyreference standardtumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

Identifiers

PMID34881099
PMCPMC8609287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.