Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39634035›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

The analytical and clinical validity of AI algorithms to score TILs in TNBC: can we use different machine learning models interchangeably?

Joan Martínez Vidal, Nikos Tsiknakis, Johan Staaf, Ana Bosch, Anna Ehinger, Emma Nimeus, Roberto Salgado, Yalai Bai, David L Rimm, Johan Hartman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors.

Joan Martínez VidalDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nikos TsiknakisDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan StaafDivision of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Medicon Village, SE-22381, Lund, Sweden.
Ana BoschDivision of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Medicon Village, SE-22381, Lund, Sweden.
Anna EhingerDepartment of Genetics, Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics, Laboratory Medicine, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden.
Emma NimeusDivision of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Medicon Village, SE-22381, Lund, Sweden.
Roberto SalgadoDepartment of Pathology, GZA-ZNA Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium.
Yalai BaiDepartment of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
David L RimmDepartment of Pathology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Johan HartmanDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Balazs AcsDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pathologist-read tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have showcased their predictive and prognostic potential for early and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) but it is still subject to variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising approach toward eliminating variability and objectively automating TILs assessment. However, demonstrating robust analytical and prognostic validity is the key challenge currently preventing their integration into clinical workflows. Methods: We evaluated the impact of ten AI models on TILs scoring, emphasizing their distinctions in TILs analytical and prognostic validity. Several AI-based TILs scoring models (seven developed and three previously validated AI models) were tested in a retrospective analytical cohort and in an independent prospective cohort to compare prognostic validation against invasive disease-free survival endpoint with 4 years median follow-up. The development and analytical validity set consisted of diagnostic tissue slides of 79 women with surgically resected primary invasive TNBC tumors diagnosed between 2012 and 2016 from the Yale School of Medicine. An independent set comprising of 215 TNBC patients from Sweden diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, was used for testing prognostic validity. Findings: A significant difference in analytical validity (Spearman's r = 0.63-0.73, p < 0.001) is highlighted across AI methodologies and training strategies. Interestingly, the prognostic performance of digital TILs is demonstrated for eight out of ten AI models, even less extensively trained ones, with similar and overlapping hazard ratios (HR) in the external validation cohort (Cox regression analysis based on IDFS-endpoint, HR = 0.40-0.47; p < 0.004). Interpretation: The demonstrated prognostic validity for most of the AI TIL models can be attributed to the intrinsic robustness of host anti-tumor immunity (measured by TILs) as a biomarker. However, the discrepancies between AI models should not be overlooked; rather, we believe that there is a critical need for an accessible, large, multi-centric dataset that will serve as a benchmark ensuring the comparability and reliability of different AI tools in clinical implementation. Funding: Nikos Tsiknakis is supported by the Swedish Research Council (Grant Number 2021-03061, Theodoros Foukakis). Balazs Acs is supported by The Swedish Society for Medical Research (Svenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk Forskning) postdoctoral grant. Roberto Salgado is supported by a grant from Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF).

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBreast cancerDeep learningMachine learningTILsTumor infiltrating lymphocytes

Identifiers

PMID39634035
PMCPMC11615110

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.