Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38282056›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Dual contrastive learning based image-to-image translation of unstained skin tissue into virtually stained H&E images.

Muhammad Zeeshan Asaf, Babar Rao, Muhammad Usman Akram, Sajid Gul Khawaja, Samavia Khan, Thu Minh Truong, Palveen Sekhon, Irfan J Khan, Muhammad Shahmir Abbasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

9 authors.

Muhammad Zeeshan AsafDepartment of Computer and Software Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Babar RaoCenter for Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ, 08873, USA.
Muhammad Usman AkramDepartment of Computer and Software Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. usmakram@gmail.com.
Sajid Gul KhawajaDepartment of Computer and Software Engineering, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Samavia KhanCenter for Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ, 08873, USA.
Thu Minh TruongCenter for Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ, 08873, USA.
Palveen SekhonEIV Diagnostics, Fresno, CA, USA.
Irfan J KhanDepartment of Pathology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA.
Muhammad Shahmir AbbasiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Towson, MD, 21204, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Staining is a crucial step in histopathology that prepares tissue sections for microscopic examination. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, also known as basic or routine staining, is used in 80% of histopathology slides worldwide. To enhance the histopathology workflow, recent research has focused on integrating generative artificial intelligence and deep learning models. These models have the potential to improve staining accuracy, reduce staining time, and minimize the use of hazardous chemicals, making histopathology a safer and more efficient field. In this study, we introduce a novel three-stage, dual contrastive learning-based, image-to-image generative (DCLGAN) model for virtually applying an "H&E stain" to unstained skin tissue images. The proposed model utilizes a unique learning setting comprising two pairs of generators and discriminators. By employing contrastive learning, our model maximizes the mutual information between traditional H&E-stained and virtually stained H&E patches. Our dataset consists of pairs of unstained and H&E-stained images, scanned with a brightfield microscope at 20 × magnification, providing a comprehensive set of training and testing images for evaluating the efficacy of our proposed model. Two metrics, Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) and Kernel Inception Distance (KID), were used to quantitatively evaluate virtual stained slides. Our analysis revealed that the average FID score between virtually stained and H&E-stained images (80.47) was considerably lower than that between unstained and virtually stained slides (342.01), and unstained and H&E stained (320.4) indicating a similarity virtual and H&E stains. Similarly, the mean KID score between H&E stained and virtually stained images (0.022) was significantly lower than the mean KID score between unstained and H&E stained (0.28) or unstained and virtually stained (0.31) images. In addition, a group of experienced dermatopathologists evaluated traditional and virtually stained images and demonstrated an average agreement of 78.8% and 90.2% for paired and single virtual stained image evaluations, respectively. Our study demonstrates that the proposed three-stage dual contrastive learning-based image-to-image generative model is effective in generating virtual stained images, as indicated by quantified parameters and grader evaluations. In addition, our findings suggest that GAN models have the potential to replace traditional H&E staining, which can reduce both time and environmental impact. This study highlights the promise of virtual staining as a viable alternative to traditional staining techniques in histopathology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEosine Yellowish-(YS)Hazardous SubstancesMicroscopyEosine Yellowish-(YS)Hazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID38282056
PMCPMC11269663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.