Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36198869›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2022

Artificial intelligence-augmented histopathologic review using image analysis to optimize DNA yield from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded slides.

Bolesław L Osinski, Aïcha BenTaieb, Irvin Ho, Ryan D Jones, Rohan P Joshi, Andrew Westley, Michael Carlson, Caleb Willis, Luke Schleicher, Brett M Mahon and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Bolesław L OsinskiTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA. bo.osinski@tempus.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0830-4589
Aïcha BenTaiebTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Irvin HoTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ryan D JonesTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rohan P JoshiTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0004-6466
Andrew WestleyTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael CarlsonTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Caleb WillisTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Luke SchleicherTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Brett M MahonTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Martin C StumpeTempus Labs, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tempus Labs (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To achieve minimum DNA input requirements for next-generation sequencing (NGS), pathologists visually estimate macrodissection and slide count decisions. Unfortunately, misestimation may cause tissue waste and increased laboratory costs. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented smart pathology review system (SmartPath) to empower pathologists with quantitative metrics for accurately determining tissue extraction parameters. SmartPath uses two deep learning architectures, a U-Net based network for cell segmentation and a multi-field-of-view convolutional network for tumor area segmentation, to extract features from digitized H&E-stained formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded slides. From the segmented tumor area, SmartPath suggests a macrodissection area. To predict DNA yield per slide, the extracted features from within the macrodissection area are correlated with known DNA yields to fit a regularized linear model (R = 0.85). Then, a pathologist-defined target yield divided by the predicted DNA yield per slide gives the number of slides to scrape. Following model development, an internal validation trial was conducted within the Tempus Labs molecular sequencing laboratory. We evaluated our system on 501 clinical colorectal cancer slides, where half received SmartPath-augmented review and half traditional pathologist review. The SmartPath cohort had 25% more DNA yields within a desired target range of 100-2000 ng. The number of extraction attempts was statistically unchanged between cohorts. The SmartPath system recommended fewer slides to scrape for large tissue sections, saving tissue in these cases. Conversely, SmartPath recommended more slides to scrape for samples with scant tissue sections, especially those with degraded DNA, helping prevent costly re-extraction due to insufficient extraction yield. A statistical analysis was performed to measure the impact of covariates on the results, offering insights on how to improve future applications of SmartPath. With these improvements, AI-augmented histopathologic review has the potential to decrease tissue waste, sequencing time, and laboratory costs by optimizing DNA yields, especially for samples with scant tissue and/or degraded DNA.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsDNAFormaldehydeHumansParaffin EmbeddingDNAFormaldehyde

Identifiers

PMID36198869
PMCPMC9532237
OpenAlexW4301394136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.