ArticleHistopathology2025
A deep active learning framework for mitotic figure detection with minimal manual annotation and labelling.
Article in Histopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimsAccurately and efficiently identifying mitotic figures (MFs) is crucial for diagnosing and grading various cancers, including glioblastoma (GBM), a highly aggressive brain tumour requiring precise and timely intervention. Traditional manual counting of MFs in whole slide images (WSIs) is labour-intensive and prone to interobserver variability. Our study introduces a deep active learning framework that addresses these challenges with minimal human intervention. METHODS AND
resultsWe utilized a dataset of GBM WSIs from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Our framework integrates convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with an active learning strategy. Initially, a CNN is trained on a small, annotated dataset. The framework then identifies uncertain samples from the unlabelled data pool, which are subsequently reviewed by experts. These ambiguous cases are verified and used for model retraining. This iterative process continues until the model achieves satisfactory performance. Our approach achieved 81.75% precision and 82.48% recall for MF detection. For MF subclass classification, it attained an accuracy of 84.1%. Furthermore, this approach significantly reduced annotation time - approximately 900 min across 66 WSIs - cutting the effort nearly in half compared to traditional methods.
conclusionsOur deep active learning framework demonstrates a substantial improvement in both efficiency and accuracy for MF detection and classification in GBM WSIs. By reducing reliance on large annotated datasets, it minimizes manual effort while maintaining high performance. This methodology can be generalized to other medical imaging tasks, supporting broader applications in the healthcare domain.
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.