ArticleScientific reports2024
Leveraging weak complementary labels enhances semantic segmentation of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
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 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.
- Advances and challenges in pathomics for liver cancer: From diagnosis to prognostic stratification.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a semi-automatic radiomics ensemble model for preoperative evaluation of breast masses in mammotome-assisted minimally invasive resection.Gland surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper we present a deep learning segmentation approach to classify and quantify the two most prevalent primary liver cancers - hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma - from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained whole slide images. While semantic segmentation of medical images typically requires costly pixel-level annotations by domain experts, there often exists additional information which is routinely obtained in clinical diagnostics but rarely utilized for model training. We propose to leverage such weak information from patient diagnoses by deriving complementary labels that indicate to which class a sample cannot belong to. To integrate these labels, we formulate a complementary loss for segmentation. Motivated by the medical application, we demonstrate for general segmentation tasks that including additional patches with solely weak complementary labels during model training can significantly improve the predictive performance and robustness of a model. On the task of diagnostic differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, we achieve a balanced accuracy of 0.91 (CI 95%: 0.86-0.95) at case level for 165 hold-out patients. Furthermore, we also show that leveraging complementary labels improves the robustness of segmentation and increases performance at case level.
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.