ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2022
Independent assessment of a deep learning system for lymph node metastasis detection on the Augmented Reality Microscope.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational methods for metastasis detection in lymph nodes and characterization of the metastasis-free lymph node microarchitecture: A systematic-narrative hybrid review.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several machine learning algorithms have demonstrated high predictive capability in the identification of cancer within digitized pathology slides. The Augmented Reality Microscope (ARM) has allowed these algorithms to be seamlessly integrated within the pathology workflow by overlaying their inferences onto its microscopic field of view in real time. We present an independent assessment of the LYmph Node Assistant (LYNA) models, state-of-the-art algorithms for the identification of breast cancer metastases in lymph node biopsies, optimized for usage on the ARM. We assessed the models on 40 whole slide images at the commonly used objective magnifications of 10×, 20×, and 40×. We analyzed their performance across clinically relevant subclasses of tissue, including breast cancer, lymphocytes, histiocytes, blood, and fat. Each model obtained overall AUC values of approximately 0.98, accuracy values of approximately 0.94, and sensitivity values above 0.88 at classifying small regions of a field of view as benign or cancerous. Across tissue subclasses, the models performed most accurately on fat and blood, and least accurately on histiocytes, germinal centers, and sinus. The models also struggled with the identification of isolated tumor cells, especially at lower magnifications. After testing, we reviewed the discrepancies between model predictions and ground truth to understand the causes of error. We introduce a distinction between
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.