ArticleHistopathology2024
Deceptive learning in histopathology.
Article in Histopathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A deep learning framework for histopathological analysis of pixel-level extracellular matrix variation in standard H&E-stained images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Smart Lies and Sharp Eyes: Pragmatic Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Pathology: Promise, Pitfalls, and Access Pathways.Cancers · 2026Review
- Foundation models in computational pathology: methods, applications and clinical implications.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- Translating Features to Findings: Deep Learning for Melanoma Subtype Prediction.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability Methods.Advances in neural information processing systems · 2022Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDeep learning holds immense potential for histopathology, automating tasks that are simple for expert pathologists and revealing novel biology for tasks that were previously considered difficult or impossible to solve by eye alone. However, the extent to which the visual strategies learned by deep learning models in histopathological analysis are trustworthy or not has yet to be systematically analysed. Here, we systematically evaluate deep neural networks (DNNs) trained for histopathological analysis in order to understand if their learned strategies are trustworthy or deceptive. METHODS AND
resultsWe trained a variety of DNNs on a novel data set of 221 whole-slide images (WSIs) from lung adenocarcinoma patients, and evaluated their effectiveness at (1) molecular profiling of KRAS versus EGFR mutations, (2) determining the primary tissue of a tumour and (3) tumour detection. While DNNs achieved above-chance performance on molecular profiling, they did so by exploiting correlations between histological subtypes and mutations, and failed to generalise to a challenging test set obtained through laser capture microdissection (LCM). In contrast, DNNs learned robust and trustworthy strategies for determining the primary tissue of a tumour as well as detecting and localising tumours in tissue.
conclusionsOur work demonstrates that DNNs hold immense promise for aiding pathologists in analysing tissue. However, they are also capable of achieving seemingly strong performance by learning deceptive strategies that leverage spurious correlations, and are ultimately unsuitable for research or clinical work. The framework we propose for model evaluation and interpretation is an important step towards developing reliable automated systems for histopathological analysis.
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.