ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparing deep learning and pathologist quantification of cell-level PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer whole-slide images.
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.
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic framework for PD-L1 expression evaluation in Latino patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Decoding (digital) histopathology: The building blocks for computational researchers.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Biomarker Discovery, and Drug Development.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Predicability of PD-L1 expression in cancer cells based solely on H&E-stained sections.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Review
- Enhanced patient selection with quantitative continuous scoring of PD-L1 expression for IO treatment in metastatic NSCLC.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparative performance of PD-L1 scoring by pathologists and AI algorithms.Histopathology · 2025Article
- Spatial analysis identifies DC niches as predictors of pembrolizumab therapy in head and neck squamous cell cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of the lactate dehydrogenase to albumin ratio in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with the first-line PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Autofluorescence Virtual Staining System for H&E Histology and Multiplex Immunofluorescence Applied to Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers in Lung Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Predicting the tumor microenvironment composition and immunotherapy response in non-small cell lung cancer from digital histopathology images.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
- Model for detecting metastatic deposits in lymph nodes of colorectal carcinoma on digital/ non-WSI images.Diagnostic pathology · 2024Article
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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is currently used in the clinic to assess eligibility for immune-checkpoint inhibitors via the tumor proportion score (TPS), but its efficacy is limited by high interobserver variability. Multiple papers have presented systems for the automatic quantification of TPS, but none report on the task of determining cell-level PD-L1 expression and often reserve their evaluation to a single PD-L1 monoclonal antibody or clinical center. In this paper, we report on a deep learning algorithm for detecting PD-L1 negative and positive tumor cells at a cellular level and evaluate it on a cell-level reference standard established by six readers on a multi-centric, multi PD-L1 assay dataset. This reference standard also provides for the first time a benchmark for computer vision algorithms. In addition, in line with other papers, we also evaluate our algorithm at slide-level by measuring the agreement between the algorithm and six pathologists on TPS quantification. We find a moderately low interobserver agreement at cell-level level (mean reader-reader F1 score = 0.68) which our algorithm sits slightly under (mean reader-AI F1 score = 0.55), especially for cases from the clinical center not included in the training set. Despite this, we find good AI-pathologist agreement on quantifying TPS compared to the interobserver agreement (mean reader-reader Cohen's kappa = 0.54, 95% CI 0.26-0.81, mean reader-AI kappa = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.72). In conclusion, our deep learning algorithm demonstrates promise in detecting PD-L1 expression at a cellular level and exhibits favorable agreement with pathologists in quantifying the tumor proportion score (TPS). We publicly release our models for use via the Grand-Challenge platform.
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.