ArticleJournal of neuropathology and experimental neurology2025
Digital pathology in tau research: A comparison of QuPath and HALO.
Article in Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-driven thresholds for standardized classification of severe Alzheimer's disease neuropathology using digital neuropathology.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical and pathologic correlations of machine learning quantification of Aβ deposits across 3 brain regions of decedents with Alzheimer disease.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Overview of Gastric Cancer Immunohistochemistry: Key Biomarkers, Advanced Detection Methods, and Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison of multiple quantitative strategies for neuropathologic image analyses.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2025Article
- Celebrating neuropathology's contributions to Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of digital pathology tools has expanded in recent years, but non-neoplastic human brain tissue presents unique challenges due to its complexity. This study evaluated HALO and QuPath tau quantification performance in the hippocampus and mid-frontal gyrus across various tauopathies. Percent positivity emerged as the most reliable measure, showing strong correlations with Braak stages and CERAD scores, outperforming object and optical densities. QuPath demonstrated superior correlations with Braak stages, while HALO excelled in aligning with CERAD scoring. However, HALO's optical density was less consistent. Paired t-tests revealed significant differences in object and optical densities between platforms, though percent positivity was consistent across both. QuPath's threshold-based object density showed similar agreement with manual counts compared to HALO's AI-dependent approach (all ρ > 0.70). Reanalysis of QuPath further improved its agreement with manual measurements and correlations with Braak and CERAD scores (all ρ > 0.70). HALO offers a user-friendly interface and excels in certain metrics but is hindered by frequent software malfunctions and more limited flexibility. In contrast, QuPath's customizable workflows and superior performance in Braak staging make it more suitable for advanced and larger-scale analyses. Overall, our study highlights the strengths and limitations of these platforms, helping guide their application in neuropathology.
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.