ArticleHeliyon2024
Deep learning for automated scoring of immunohistochemically stained tumour tissue sections - Validation across tumour types based on patient outcomes.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Supporting Histopathologic and Molecular Characterization of Gynecological Cancers: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Antibody-Based Multiplex Image Analysis: Standard Analytical Workflows and Artificial Intelligence Tools for Pathologists.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to develop deep learning (DL) models to detect protein expression in immunohistochemically (IHC) stained tissue-sections, and to compare their accuracy and performance with manually scored clinically relevant proteins in common cancer types. Five cancer patient cohorts (colon, two prostate, breast, and endometrial) were included. We developed separate DL models for scoring IHC-stained tissue-sections with nuclear, cytoplasmic, and membranous staining patterns. For training, we used images with annotations of cells with positive and negative staining from the colon cohort stained for Ki-67 and PMS2 (nuclear model), the prostate cohort 1 stained for PTEN (cytoplasmic model) and β-catenin (membranous model). The nuclear DL model was validated for MSH6 in the colon, MSH6 and PMS2 in the endometrium, Ki-67 and CyclinB1 in prostate, and oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the breast cancer cohorts. The cytoplasmic DL model was validated for PTEN and Mapre2, and the membranous DL model for CD44 and Flotillin1, all in prostate cohorts. When comparing the results of manual and DL scores in the validation sets, using manual scores as the ground truth, we observed an average correct classification rate of 91.5 % (76.9-98.5 %) for the nuclear model, 85.6 % (73.3-96.6 %) for the cytoplasmic model, and 78.4 % (75.5-84.3 %) for the membranous model. In survival analyses, manual and DL scores showed similar prognostic impact, with similar hazard ratios and p-values for all DL models. Our findings demonstrate that DL models offer a promising alternative to manual IHC scoring, providing efficiency and reproducibility across various data sources and markers.
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.