ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Assessing the quality of whole slide images in cytology from nuclei features.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Background and objective: Implementation of machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms into digital pathology laboratories faces several challenges, notably the variation in whole slide image preparation protocols. The diversity of preparation pipelines forces algorithms to be protocol-dependant. Moreover, the error susceptibility of each stage in the preparation process implies a need of quality control tools. To address these challenges, this article introduces a straightforward, interpretable, and computationally efficient quality control module to ensure optimal algorithmic performance. Methods: The proposed quality control module ensures algorithmic performance by representing an algorithm by a reference whole slide image preparation protocol validated on it. Then, inspired by data description methods, a preparation protocol is represented by nuclei feature distributions, obtained for several whole slide images it has produced. The quality of a preparation protocol is evaluated according to several reference preparation protocols, by comparing their feature distributions with a weighted distance. Results: Through empirical analysis conducted on seven distinct preparation protocols, we demonstrated that the proposed method build a quality module that clearly discriminates each preparation. Additionally, we showed that this module performs well on more larger and realistic corpus from laboratories routine, detecting quality deviations. Conclusion: Even if the proposed method necessitates minimal data and few computational resources, we showed that it is interpretable and relevant on realistic corpus from several laboratories' routine. We strongly believe in the necessity of quality control from the algorithmic perspective and hope this kind of approach will be extended to improve quality and reliability of digital pathology whole slide images.
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.