ArticleScientific reports2022
Deep learning features encode interpretable morphologies within histological images.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming histologic assessment: artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and personalized treatment.British journal of cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Tumor-Aware Unsupervised Digital HER2 Immunohistochemistry via Dual Contrastive Learning.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Compositional and interpretable representation of histology using AI foundation models and sparse autoencoders.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Progress and new challenges in image-based profiling.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- Article
- Prediction of biochemical prostate cancer recurrence from any Gleason score using robust tissue structure and clinically available information.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Prospects and challenges of deep learning in gynecologic malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Publicly available datasets of breast histopathology H&E whole-slide images: A scoping review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
- The roles of patient-derived xenograft models and artificial intelligence toward precision medicine.MedComm · 2024Review
- A Pan-Cancer Patient-Derived Xenograft Histology Image Repository with Genomic and Pathologic Annotations Enables Deep Learning Analysis.Cancer research · 2024Article
- Article
- Review of Molecular Technologies for Investigating Canine Cancer.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Classifying driver mutations of papillary thyroid carcinoma on whole slide image: an automated workflow applying deep convolutional neural network.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- SAMPLER: unsupervised representations for rapid analysis of whole slide tissue images.EBioMedicine · 2024Article
- A deep learning method that identifies cellular heterogeneity using nanoscale nuclear features.Nature machine intelligence · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Landscape of Imaging Feature-Associated RNA Expression Profiles in Human Breast Tissue.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are revolutionizing digital pathology by enabling machine learning-based classification of a variety of phenotypes from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) whole slide images (WSIs), but the interpretation of CNNs remains difficult. Most studies have considered interpretability in a post hoc fashion, e.g. by presenting example regions with strongly predicted class labels. However, such an approach does not explain the biological features that contribute to correct predictions. To address this problem, here we investigate the interpretability of H&E-derived CNN features (the feature weights in the final layer of a transfer-learning-based architecture). While many studies have incorporated CNN features into predictive models, there has been little empirical study of their properties. We show such features can be construed as abstract morphological genes ("mones") with strong independent associations to biological phenotypes. Many mones are specific to individual cancer types, while others are found in multiple cancers especially from related tissue types. We also observe that mone-mone correlations are strong and robustly preserved across related cancers. Importantly, linear mone-based classifiers can very accurately separate 38 distinct classes (19 tumor types and their adjacent normals, AUC = [Formula: see text] for each class prediction), and linear classifiers are also highly effective for universal tumor detection (AUC = [Formula: see text]). This linearity provides evidence that individual mones or correlated mone clusters may be associated with interpretable histopathological features or other patient characteristics. In particular, the statistical similarity of mones to gene expression values allows integrative mone analysis via expression-based bioinformatics approaches. We observe strong correlations between individual mones and individual gene expression values, notably mones associated with collagen gene expression in ovarian cancer. Mone-expression comparisons also indicate that immunoglobulin expression can be identified using mones in colon adenocarcinoma and that immune activity can be identified across multiple cancer types, and we verify these findings by expert histopathological review. Our work demonstrates that mones provide a morphological H&E decomposition that can be effectively associated with diverse phenotypes, analogous to the interpretability of transcription via gene expression values. Our work also demonstrates mones can be interpreted without using a classifier as a proxy.
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.