Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322056›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Automated quality assessment of large digitised histology cohorts by artificial intelligence.

Maryam Haghighat, Lisa Browning, Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, Stefano Malacrino, Nasullah Khalid Alham, Richard Colling, Ying Cui, Emad Rakha, Freddie C Hamdy, Clare Verrill and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interobserver Variability Across Whole-Slide Imaging Systems.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maryam Haghighat *Department of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. maryam.haghighat@csiro.au.
Lisa Browning *Department of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Korsuk SirinukunwattanaDepartment of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stefano MalacrinoNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Nasullah Khalid AlhamDepartment of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard CollingDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Ying CuiNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Emad RakhaSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Freddie C HamdyNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Clare VerrillDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Jens RittscherDepartment of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering (IBME), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. jens.rittscher@eng.ox.ac.uk.
University of Oxford · GBOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research using whole slide images (WSIs) of histopathology slides has increased exponentially over recent years. Glass slides from retrospective cohorts, some with patient follow-up data are digitised for the development and validation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Such resources, therefore, become very important, with the need to ensure that their quality is of the standard necessary for downstream AI development. However, manual quality control of large cohorts of WSIs by visual assessment is unfeasible, and whilst quality control AI algorithms exist, these focus on bespoke aspects of image quality, e.g. focus, or use traditional machine-learning methods, which are unable to classify the range of potential image artefacts that should be considered. In this study, we have trained and validated a multi-task deep neural network to automate the process of quality control of a large retrospective cohort of prostate cases from which glass slides have been scanned several years after production, to determine both the usability of the images at the diagnostic level (considered in this study to be the minimal standard for research) and the common image artefacts present. Using a two-layer approach, quality overlays of WSIs were generated from a quality assessment (QA) undertaken at patch-level at [Formula: see text] magnification. From these quality overlays the slide-level quality scores were predicted and then compared to those generated by three specialist urological pathologists, with a Pearson correlation of 0.89 for overall 'usability' (at a diagnostic level), and 0.87 and 0.82 for focus and H&E staining quality scores respectively. To demonstrate its wider potential utility, we subsequently applied our QA pipeline to the TCGA prostate cancer cohort and to a colorectal cancer cohort, for comparison. Our model, designated as PathProfiler, indicates comparable predicted usability of images from the cohorts assessed (86-90% of WSIs predicted to be usable), and perhaps more significantly is able to predict WSIs that could benefit from an intervention such as re-scanning or re-staining for quality improvement. We have shown in this study that AI can be used to automate the process of quality control of large retrospective WSI cohorts to maximise their utility for research.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansMaleNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35322056
PMCPMC8943120
OpenAlexW4220668404

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.