ArticleScientific reports2025
Lossy DICOM conversion may affect AI performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison and image analysis of different file formats on whole-slide images for colorectal and non-small cell lung carcinomas.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in hepatology.Frontiers in digital health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many pathologies have started to digitize their glass slides. To ensure long term accessibility, it is desirable to store them in the DICOM format. Currently, many scanners initially store the images in vendor-specific formats and only provide DICOM converters, with only a few producing DICOM directly. However, such a conversion is not lossless for all vendors, and in the case of MRXS files even overlapping tile handling differs. The resulting consequences have not yet been investigated. We converted MRXS files depicting bladder, ovarian and prostate tissue into DICOM images using the 3D Histech/Sysmex converter and an open-source tool both using baseline JPEG for the re-compression. After conversion no human perceptible differences were present between the images, nevertheless they were not identical and had structure similarity indices (SSIM) of ~ 0.85 to ~ 0.96 on average, while the vendor specific converter in general achieved higher values. AI models based on CNNs and current foundation models could distinguish between the original and the converted images in most cases with an accuracy of up to 99.5%. And already trained AI models showed significant performance differences between the image formats in five out of 64 scenarios, mainly when only little data was used during AI training. So, if DICOM images are intended for a diagnostic use, all processes and algorithms must be (re-)evaluated with the converted files, as images are not identical. Nevertheless, the DICOM format is an excellent opportunity to ensure interoperability in future, as some first AI trainings with converted files did not result in systematically decreased performances.
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.