ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Automatic labels are as effective as manual labels in digital pathology images classification with deep learning.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing availability of biomedical data is helping to design more robust deep learning (DL) algorithms to analyze biomedical samples. Currently, one of the main limitations to training DL algorithms to perform a specific task is the need for medical experts to manually label the data. Automatic methods to label data exist; however, automatic labels can be noisy, and it is not completely clear in which situations they can be used to train DL models. This paper aims to investigate under which circumstances automatic labels can be used to train a DL model for the classification of whole slide images. The analysis involves multiple architectures, such as convolutional neural networks and vision transformer, and 10,604 WSIs as training data, collected from three use cases: celiac disease, lung cancer, and colon cancer, which include respectively binary, multiclass, and multilabel data. The results identify 10% as the percentage of noisy labels before a performance drop-off, so to train effective models for the classification of WSIs, reaching, respectively, F1-scores of 0.906, 0.757, and 0.833. Therefore, an algorithm generating automatic labels needs to stay within this range to be adopted, as shown by the application of Semantic Knowledge Extractor Tool as a tool to automatically extract concepts and use them as labels. Automatic labels are as effective as manual labels in this case, achieving solid performance comparable to that obtained by training models with manual labels.
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.