ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Prioritizing cases from a multi-institutional cohort for a dataset of pathologist annotations.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: With the increasing energy surrounding the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models, the use of the same external validation dataset by various developers allows for a direct comparison of model performance. Through our High Throughput Truthing project, we are creating a validation dataset for AI/ML models trained in the assessment of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials and methods: We obtained clinical metadata for hematoxylin and eosin-stained glass slides and corresponding scanned whole slide images (WSIs) of TNBC core biopsies from two US academic medical centers. We selected regions of interest (ROIs) from the WSIs to target regions with various tissue morphologies and sTILs densities. Given the selected ROIs, we implemented a hierarchical rank-sort method for case prioritization. Results: We received 122 glass slides and clinical metadata on 105 unique patients with TNBC. All received cases were female, and the mean age was 63.44 years. 60% of all cases were White patients, and 38.1% were Black or African American. After case prioritization, the skewness of the sTILs density distribution improved from 0.60 to 0.46 with a corresponding increase in the entropy of the sTILs density bins from 1.20 to 1.24. We retained cases with less prevalent metadata elements. Conclusion: This method allows us to prioritize underrepresented subgroups based on important clinical factors. In this manuscript, we discuss how we sourced the clinical metadata, selected ROIs, and developed our approach to prioritizing cases for inclusion in our pivotal study.
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.