Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40894240›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025

Automatic labels are as effective as manual labels in digital pathology images classification with deep learning.

Niccolo Marini, Stefano Marchesin, Lluis Borras Ferris, Simon Püttmann, Marek Wodzinski, Riccardo Fratti, Damian Podareanu, Alessandro Caputo, Svetla Boytcheva, Simona Vatrano and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Niccolo MariniInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.
Stefano MarchesinDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Lluis Borras FerrisInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.
Simon PüttmannUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Marek WodzinskiInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.
Riccardo FrattiInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.
Damian PodareanuSURFsara, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alessandro CaputoDepartment of Pathology, Ruggi University Hospital, Salerno, Italy.
Svetla BoytchevaOntotext, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Simona VatranoPathology Unit, Gravina Hospital Caltagirone ASP, Catania, Italy.
Filippo FraggettaPathology Unit, Gravina Hospital Caltagirone ASP, Catania, Italy.
Iris NagtegaalDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Gianmaria SilvelloDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Manfredo AtzoriInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.
Henning MüllerInformation Systems Institute, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO Valais), Sierre, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Automatic weak labelsDeep learningHistopathology image classificationNoisy labels

Identifiers

PMID40894240
PMCPMC12391760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.