ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Unveiling key pathomic features for automated diagnosis and Gleason grade estimation in prostate cancer.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Evaluation of Biological Techniques.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Label-free histological identification of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate using texture analysis-based multimodal stimulated Raman scattering microscopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Explainable AI for classifying vertebral fracture histology in digital spine pathology.Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent advances in histology scanning technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer great opportunities to support cancer diagnosis. The inability to interpret the extracted features and model predictions is one of the major issues limiting the acceptance of AI models in clinical practice, and a clear representation of the relevance of the extracted features and model predictions is lacking. Focusing on the problem of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and grading, this study aims to detect which are the most discriminant features for distinguishing malignant from non-malignant tissue and Gleason patterns, leaving the evaluation of models' classification performances as a secondary goal.
methodsUtilizing a dataset of 187 annotated H&E-stained whole-slide images, the study explores three magnification levels, extracting 1971 features per tile. Two machine-learning classification tasks are conducted (Malignant vs. Non-malignant and High-grade vs. Low-grade) for each magnification. SHapley Additive exPlanations method was used to investigate models' interpretability, estimating the importance of pathomic features and their impact on prediction models.
resultsWavelet features were consistently prominent in "High-grade vs Low-grade" classification task, together with local binary pattern descriptors. Some histogram features appeared as key features for diagnostic classification tasks. The identified key discriminant features were classified for their specificity with respect to WSI magnification. Very high AUC values were reached for PCa diagnosis task (0.97 < AUC < 0.99), while task involving Low- versus High-grade classification exhibit lower AUC values (maximum AUC: 0.72-0.73).
conclusionsThis work provides new insights for the explanation of hand-crafted pathomic-based classification models for PCa diagnosis and grading. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.