Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41093269›Full record

ReviewJournal of advanced research2026

Bridging traditional and deep learning methods in H&E histological image normalization: a comprehensive review and introducing a novel framework for comparative analyses.

Behnaz Haji Molla Hoseyni, Sevda Imany, Ahmadreza Iranpour, Maryam Mehrabani, Sina Seifouri, Maryam Rafieipour-Jobaneh, Sina Firuzbakht, Ali Masoudi-Nejad

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of advanced research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Behnaz Haji Molla HoseyniLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Sevda ImanyLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmadreza IranpourLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam MehrabaniLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; Laboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), Department of Bioinformatics, Kish Intl. Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Sina SeifouriLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; Department of Computer Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam Rafieipour-JobanehLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Sina FiruzbakhtLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Ali Masoudi-NejadLaboratory of Systems Biology and Bioinformatics (LBB), College of Engineering Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Electronic address: amasoudin@ut.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistology images are a cornerstone of pathology, which allow automated analysis for disease diagnosis. However, variations in staining and image acquisition processes significantly affect the performance of these algorithms. Histology image normalization is method to achieve uniformity in image color distributions, which will enhance the accuracy and consistency of automated analysis. AIM OF REVIEW: This review was conducted with the aim of assessing normalization methods and comparing them in an empirical manner to help researchers choose the most appropriate method for their study. It also aims to assist academics and professionals involved in automated image analysis and digital pathology. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: This review categorizes normalization techniques into four groups: deep learning-based approaches (e.g., GANs, autoencoders, diffusion models), traditional methods (e.g., deconvolution, histogram matching), hybrid models, and a novel signal processing-based method. It also introduces a new deep learning framework for evaluating normalization strategies and experimentally compares eight state-of-the-art methods on histopathology images. The results highlight the strengths and limitations of each approach, helping researchers and professionals choose suitable methods for their needs. In addition, the review emphasizes the impact of color variation on the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems and the importance of preserving biological information during normalization. Finally, it outlines directions for future research, including integrating normalization with data augmentation and exploring information preservation beyond cancer subtype.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsAutoencoderHumansDeep learningDigital pathologyHistology imagesNormalization

Identifiers

PMID41093269
PMCPMC13316589

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.