ArticleESMO open2025
Multi-assistant methods improve stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) assessment in breast cancer: results of multi-institutional ring studies.
Article in ESMO open, 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.
- Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy in triple-negative breast cancer: from mechanistic exploration to clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) have significant prognostic value for breast cancer patients, but its accurate assessment can be very challenging. We comprehensively studied the pitfalls faced by pathologists with different levels of professional experience, and explored clinical applicability of reference cards (RCs)- and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted methods in assessing sTILs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree rounds of ring studies (RSs) involving 12 pathologists from four hospitals were conducted. AI algorithms based on the field of view (FOV) and whole section were proposed to create RCs and to compute whole-slide image interpretations, respectively. Stromal regions identified and the associated sTIL scores by the AI method were provided to the pathologists as references. Fifty cases of surgical resections were used for interobserver concordance analysis in RS1. A total of 200 FOVs with challenge factors were assessed in RS2 for accuracy of the RC-assisted and AI-assisted methods, while 167 cases were used to validate their clinical performance in RS3.
resultsWith the assistance of RCs, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in RS1 increased significantly to 0.834 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.772-0.889]. The largest enhancement in ICC, from moderate (ICC: 0.592; 95% CI 0.499-0.677) to good (ICC: 0.808; 95% CI 0.746-0.857) was observed for heterogeneity. Accuracy evaluation showed significant grade improvement for heterogeneity and stromal factor FOVs among senior, intermediate, and junior groups. The ICC of heterogeneity and stromal factor analysis by the AI-assisted method achieved a level comparable to that of the senior group with RC assistance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, denoted as AUC, for AI-assisted sTIL scores in predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy was 0.937, which was superior to visual assessment with an AUC of 0.775.
conclusionRC- and AI-assisted technology can reduce the uncertainty of interpretation caused by heterogeneous distribution.
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.