Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39375719›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Equipping computational pathology systems with artifact processing pipelines: a showcase for computation and performance trade-offs.

Neel Kanwal, Farbod Khoraminia, Umay Kiraz, Andrés Mosquera-Zamudio, Carlos Monteagudo, Emiel A M Janssen, Tahlita C M Zuiverloon, Chunming Rong, Kjersti Engan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Beyond the Classics: The Synergy of AI and Genomics Reveals an Expanded Repertoire of Pigmentation Genes.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. DenseUNet for Breast Cancer Segmentation in Histopathological Images.Journal of medical signals and sensors · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Machine learning methods for histopathological image analysis: Updates in 2024.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Neel Kanwal *Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021, Stavanger, Norway. neel.kanwal@uis.no.
Farbod Khoraminia *Department of Urology, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 1035 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Umay Kiraz *Department of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, 4011, Stavanger, Norway.
Andrés Mosquera-Zamudio *Department of Pathology, INCLIVA Biomedical Research Institute, and University of Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Carlos MonteagudoDepartment of Pathology, INCLIVA Biomedical Research Institute, and University of Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Emiel A M JanssenDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, 4011, Stavanger, Norway.
Tahlita C M ZuiverloonDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 1035 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Chunming RongDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021, Stavanger, Norway.
Kjersti EnganDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, 4021, Stavanger, Norway. kjersti.engan@uis.no.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 860627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistopathology is a gold standard for cancer diagnosis. It involves extracting tissue specimens from suspicious areas to prepare a glass slide for a microscopic examination. However, histological tissue processing procedures result in the introduction of artifacts, which are ultimately transferred to the digitized version of glass slides, known as whole slide images (WSIs). Artifacts are diagnostically irrelevant areas and may result in wrong predictions from deep learning (DL) algorithms. Therefore, detecting and excluding artifacts in the computational pathology (CPATH) system is essential for reliable automated diagnosis.

methodsIn this paper, we propose a mixture of experts (MoE) scheme for detecting five notable artifacts, including damaged tissue, blur, folded tissue, air bubbles, and histologically irrelevant blood from WSIs. First, we train independent binary DL models as experts to capture particular artifact morphology. Then, we ensemble their predictions using a fusion mechanism. We apply probabilistic thresholding over the final probability distribution to improve the sensitivity of the MoE. We developed four DL pipelines to evaluate computational and performance trade-offs. These include two MoEs and two multiclass models of state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) and vision transformers (ViTs). These DL pipelines are quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated on external and out-of-distribution (OoD) data to assess generalizability and robustness for artifact detection application.

resultsWe extensively evaluated the proposed MoE and multiclass models. DCNNs-based MoE and ViTs-based MoE schemes outperformed simpler multiclass models and were tested on datasets from different hospitals and cancer types, where MoE using (MobileNet) DCNNs yielded the best results. The proposed MoE yields 86.15 % F1 and 97.93% sensitivity scores on unseen data, retaining less computational cost for inference than MoE using ViTs. This best performance of MoEs comes with relatively higher computational trade-offs than multiclass models. Furthermore, we apply post-processing to create an artifact segmentation mask, a potential artifact-free RoI map, a quality report, and an artifact-refined WSI for further computational analysis. During the qualitative evaluation, field experts assessed the predictive performance of MoEs over OoD WSIs. They rated artifact detection and artifact-free area preservation, where the highest agreement translated to a Cohen Kappa of 0.82, indicating substantial agreement for the overall diagnostic usability of the DCNN-based MoE scheme.

conclusionsThe proposed artifact detection pipeline will not only ensure reliable CPATH predictions but may also provide quality control. In this work, the best-performing pipeline for artifact detection is MoE with DCNNs. Our detailed experiments show that there is always a trade-off between performance and computational complexity, and no straightforward DL solution equally suits all types of data and applications. The code and HistoArtifacts dataset can be found online at Github and Zenodo , respectively.

Indexed as

ArtifactsDeep LearningHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeoplasmsPathology, ClinicalComputational pathologyDeep learningHistological artifactsMixture of expertsVision transformerWhole slide images

Identifiers

PMID39375719
PMCPMC11457387

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.