ArticleNeuro-oncology2026
AI-driven WHO 2021 classification of gliomas based only on H&E-stained slides.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2026. 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.
- Agentic systems in computational pathology: architectures, evidence, and translational challenges.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in neuro-oncology: Current advances and legal considerations in the European Union.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe WHO 2021 classification criteria for adult-type diffuse glioma integrate histology with molecular profiling for conclusive diagnosis. Since molecular profiling can be expensive and time-consuming, often necessitating outsourcing or leading to the "not otherwise specified (NOS) label," this study develops an AI-driven WHO 2021 classification of gliomas solely from H&E whole-slide images (WSIs).
methodsOur pipeline is based on a multi-institutional dataset reclassified per WHO 2021 guidelines. This dataset includes (a) Primarily US-based TCGA-GBM/TCGA-LGG (n = 1,320) for model training, independently evaluated on two hold-out sets, (b) Austria-based EBRAINS (n = 794), and (c) India-based IPD-Brain (n = 304). Each WSI undergoes pre-processing followed by quantitative benchmarking across (i) eight pathology foundation models (FM), (ii) nine aggregation methods (AM), and (iii) 15 combinations of magnification levels through a late fusion approach. Model interpretability conducted through heatmaps highlights distinct, identifiable morphology features.
resultsOur best-performing combination of FM, AM, and multi-magnification achieved an AUC of 97.95% on the training cohort, 96.30% on EBRAINS (set 1), and 92.61% on IPD (set 2). The results yield the following key insights: (1) domain-specific FMs outperform ImageNet-based models, (2) AMs, while theoretically promising yield larger performance improvements when used with ImageNet-based feature extractor rather than FMs, and (3) Fusion of multiple magnifications adds value in performance.
conclusionDetermining glioma diagnosis directly from H&E slides can obviate the need for molecular profiling, expedite conclusive diagnosis, and, hence, clinical decision-making. These findings motivate the development of advanced domain-relevant FMs and the design of more adaptable slide-level aggregation techniques.
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.