ArticleScientific reports2025
Deeply supervised two stage generative adversarial network for stain normalization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A protocol for evaluating robustness to H&E staining variation in computational pathology models.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Bridging traditional and deep learning methods in H&E histological image normalization: a comprehensive review and introducing a novel framework for comparative analyses.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in digital pathology diagnosis and analysis: technologies, challenges, and future prospects.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
- Structure-Preserving Histopathological Stain Normalization via Attention-Guided Residual Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.MedComm · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The color variations present in histopathological images pose a significant challenge to computational pathology and, consequently, negatively affect the performance of certain pathological image analysis methods, especially those based on deep learning techniques. To date, several methods have been proposed to mitigate this issue. However, these methods either produce images with low texture retention, perform poorly when trained with small datasets, or have low generalization capabilities. In this paper, we propose a Deep Supervised Two-stage Generative Adversarial Network known as DSTGAN for stain-normalization. Specifically, we introduce deep supervision to generative adversarial networks in an innovative way to enhance the learning capacity of the model, benefiting from different model regularization methods. To make fuller use of source domain images for training the model, we drew upon semi-supervised concepts to design a novel two-stage staining strategy. Additionally, we construct a generator that can capture long-distance semantic relationships, enabling the model to retain more abundant texture information in the generated images. In the evaluation of the quality of generated images, we have achieved state-of-the-art performance on TUPAC-2016, MITOS-ATYPIA-14, ICIAR-BACH-2018 and MICCAI-16-GlaS datasets, improving the precision of classification and segmentation by 5.2% and 4.2%, respectively. Not only has our model significantly improved the quality of the stained images compared to existing stain normalization methods, but it also has a positive impact on the execution of downstream classification and segmentation tasks. Our method has further reduced the effect that staining differences have on computational pathology, thereby improving the accuracy of histopathological image analysis to some extent.
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.