ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022
Development and technical validation of an artificial intelligence model for quantitative analysis of histopathologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review: Variability in Definitions of Fibrostenosis in Eosinophilic Oesophagitis.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing the understanding of eosinophilic esophagitis: From pathogenesis to novel therapies.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2026Review
- A machine learning model of lamina propria fibrosis in eosinophilic esophagitis for prediction of fibrostenotic disease.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Digital pathology and spatial omics in steatohepatitis: Clinical applications and discovery potentials.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025Review
- Can artificial intelligence improve the diagnosis and management of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis?World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in screening and medical imaging of precancerous gastric diseases.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Current Trends and Future Directions of Digital Pathology and Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: A Scientometric-Based Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in eosinophilic esophagitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Development and dysfunction of structural cells in eosinophilic esophagitis.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Review
- Machine learning-based identification and characterization of mast cells in eosinophilic esophagitis.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Article
- Eosinophils Instance Object Segmentation on Whole Slide Imaging Using Multi-label Circle Representation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In an attempt to provide quantitative, reproducible, and standardized analyses in cases of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), we have developed an artificial intelligence (AI) digital pathology model for the evaluation of histologic features in the EoE/esophageal eosinophilia spectrum. Here, we describe the development and technical validation of this novel AI tool. Methods: A total of 10 726 objects and 56.2 mm Results: The performance of the AI model for all cell type features was similar/non-inferior to that of our group of GI pathologists (F1-scores: 94.5-94.8 for AI vs human and 92.6-96.0 for human vs human). Segmentation area features were rated for accuracy using the following scale: 1. "perfect or nearly perfect" (95%-100%, no significant errors), 2. "very good" (80%-95%, only minor errors), 3. "good" (70%-80%, significant errors but still captures the feature well), 4. "insufficient" (less than 70%, significant errors compromising feature recognition). Rating scores for tissue (1.01), spongiosis (1.15), basal layer (1.05), surface layer (1.04), lamina propria (1.15), and collagen (1.11) were in the "very good" to "perfect or nearly perfect" range, while degranulation (2.23) was rated between "good" and "very good". Conclusion: Our newly developed AI-based tool showed an excellent performance (non-inferior to a group of experienced GI pathologists) for the recognition of various histologic features in the EoE/esophageal mucosal eosinophilia spectrum. This tool represents an important step in creating an accurate and reproducible method for semi-automated quantitative analysis to be used in the evaluation of esophageal biopsies in this clinical context.
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.