Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39516292›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2025

Determination of Ki-67 indices in neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract: the past, the present, and the future.

Jacob A Houpt, Eric Liu, Hui Wang, Matthew J Cecchini, Charles Ling, Qi Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Jacob A HouptDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Eric LiuDepartment of Computer Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Hui WangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Matthew J CecchiniDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Charles LingDepartment of Computer Science, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Qi ZhangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada. qzhan33@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4928-2742

Funding

Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry Innovation Fund (PRIF)Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry Pathology Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ki-67 index (Ki-67i) is integral to the grading of many tumours. There remains considerable variability across pathologists in methods used to determine Ki-67i and in their results. Manual counting (or "eyeballing") is widely used, but digital pathology tools such as web-based image analysis and artificial intelligence-assisted cell detection software have become available in daily pathology practice. This study aims to compare the accuracy and efficiency of manual and two digital methods of Ki-67i determination. H&E and Ki-67 immunohistochemical (IHC) slides/images of 12 gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (GI-NETs) were provided to 8 pathologists to evaluate Ki-67i via manual estimation (ME; the "past"), web-based image analysis using cellular segmentation (AI4Path.ca; the "present"), and software-based image analysis with built-in AI algorithms (QuPath; the "future"). Data collected include Ki67i, time expended, total cells counted, and pathologists' confidence level in the reported result. Deviation of Ki-67i from a gold standard result (GS) was analyzed using multiple linear regression, and results were compared via paired t test. Our results found no statistically significant differences in Ki-67i deviation from GS when comparing ME and AI4P methods for all 12 cases. The QP Ki-67i detection accuracy varied significantly. ME was the method with the least time expenditure. Junior pathologists are less confident in ME. Grading consensus was comparable among all three methods. These findings suggest that while digital pathology can confer increased Ki-67i accuracy in some cases of GI-NETs, higher time expenditure and proper hotspot selection may represent barriers to the adoption of digital pathology methods in the future.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorGastrointestinal NeoplasmsKi-67 AntigenNeuroendocrine TumorsArtificial IntelligenceHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryNeoplasm GradingObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, TumorKi-67 AntigenDigital pathologyKi-67Neuroendocrine tumours

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.