ArticleImmunologic research2025
Comparison of artificial intelligence applications and commercial system performances using selected ANA IIF images.
Article in Immunologic research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staining patterns of autoantibodies in indirect immunofluorescence for autoimmune diseases of the digestive system: morphological characteristics and clinical significance.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology: results from the first National survey by the Italian association of clinical microbiologists.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Pilot Study of AI-Assisted ANA Immunofluorescence Reading-Comparison with Classical Visual Interpretation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate and accessible classification of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) through indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) imaging is crucial for diagnosing autoimmune diseases. However, many laboratories, particularly those with limited resources, lack access to expensive commercial systems for automated analysis. This study evaluates the performance of an application developed by expert physicians using an artificial intelligence application (Microsoft Azure) to classify ANA IIF images. The results are compared with EuroPattern to assess the potential of AI in assisting laboratory experts, especially in resource-limited settings. A total of 648 ANA IIF images from the EuroPattern archive were used to train an AI model across nine classes with varying fluorescence intensities (+ to + + + +). Testing was conducted with 96 images, ensuring clarity by excluding mixed patterns. Microsoft Azure's Custom Vision service was employed for labeling and prediction. Expert evaluations, EuroPattern results, and AI classifications were compared. Both EuroPattern and the Azure-based AI model achieved 100% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in positive and negative discrimination. EuroPattern had an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.979, and the Azure-based AI model had an ICC of 0.948, indicating slightly lower performance. EuroPattern outperformed the Azure-based AI model in recognizing homogeneous, speckled, centromere, and dense fine-speckled patterns. The Azure-based AI model performed better in identifying cytoplasmic reticular/AMA-like patterns. The results suggest that AI-based image analysis tools, such as Azure, can be valuable for diagnostics in resource-limited labs. However, further testing with larger datasets and routine patient samples is needed to confirm their effectiveness in real-world clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40227504What 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.