Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36917112›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Pathologist Validation of a Machine Learning-Derived Feature for Colon Cancer Risk Stratification.

Vincenzo L'Imperio, Ellery Wulczyn, Markus Plass, Heimo Müller, Nicolò Tamini, Luca Gianotti, Nicola Zucchini, Robert Reihs, Greg S Corrado, Dale R Webster and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Digital counting of tissue cells for molecular analysis: the QuANTUM pipeline.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Article
  18. Knowledge-Informed Machine Learning for Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Review.IEEE transactions on automation science and engineering : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Vincenzo L'ImperioDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, University of Milano-Bicocca, IRCCS (Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare) Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
Ellery WulczynGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Markus PlassMedical University of Graz, Diagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Graz, Austria.
Heimo MüllerMedical University of Graz, Diagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Graz, Austria.
Nicolò TaminiDepartment of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Luca GianottiDepartment of Surgery, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Nicola ZucchiniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, University of Milano-Bicocca, IRCCS (Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare) Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
Robert ReihsMedical University of Graz, Diagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Graz, Austria.
Greg S CorradoGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Dale R WebsterGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Lily H PengGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Po-Hsuan Cameron ChenGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Marialuisa LavitranoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, University of Milano-Bicocca, IRCCS (Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare) Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
Yun LiuGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
David F SteinerGoogle Health, Google LLC, Palo Alto, California.
Kurt ZatloukalMedical University of Graz, Diagnostic and Research Institute of Pathology, Graz, Austria.
Fabio PagniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Pathology, University of Milano-Bicocca, IRCCS (Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare) Fondazione San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Identifying new prognostic features in colon cancer has the potential to refine histopathologic review and inform patient care. Although prognostic artificial intelligence systems have recently demonstrated significant risk stratification for several cancer types, studies have not yet shown that the machine learning-derived features associated with these prognostic artificial intelligence systems are both interpretable and usable by pathologists. Objective: To evaluate whether pathologist scoring of a histopathologic feature previously identified by machine learning is associated with survival among patients with colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used deidentified, archived colorectal cancer cases from January 2013 to December 2015 from the University of Milano-Bicocca. All available histologic slides from 258 consecutive colon adenocarcinoma cases were reviewed from December 2021 to February 2022 by 2 pathologists, who conducted semiquantitative scoring for tumor adipose feature (TAF), which was previously identified via a prognostic deep learning model developed with an independent colorectal cancer cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prognostic value of TAF for overall survival and disease-specific survival as measured by univariable and multivariable regression analyses. Interpathologist agreement in TAF scoring was also evaluated. Results: A total of 258 colon adenocarcinoma histopathologic cases from 258 patients (138 men [53%]; median age, 67 years [IQR, 65-81 years]) with stage II (n = 119) or stage III (n = 139) cancer were included. Tumor adipose feature was identified in 120 cases (widespread in 63 cases, multifocal in 31, and unifocal in 26). For overall survival analysis after adjustment for tumor stage, TAF was independently prognostic in 2 ways: TAF as a binary feature (presence vs absence: hazard ratio [HR] for presence of TAF, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.07-2.25]; P = .02) and TAF as a semiquantitative categorical feature (HR for widespread TAF, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.23-2.85]; P = .004). Interpathologist agreement for widespread TAF vs lower categories (absent, unifocal, or multifocal) was 90%, corresponding to a κ metric at this threshold of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.58-0.80). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, pathologists were able to learn and reproducibly score for TAF, providing significant risk stratification on this independent data set. Although additional work is warranted to understand the biological significance of this feature and to establish broadly reproducible TAF scoring, this work represents the first validation to date of human expert learning from machine learning in pathology. Specifically, this validation demonstrates that a computationally identified histologic feature can represent a human-identifiable, prognostic feature with the potential for integration into pathology practice.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaColonic NeoplasmsAgedArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningMalePathologistsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID36917112
PMCPMC10015309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.