Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41122701›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Machine-learning for quantitative histopathology of piglet intestinal tissues: challenges with limited training data.

Cecilie Brandt Becker, Mette Sif Hansen, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Henrik Elvang Jensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. 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. Computational Quantification of Collagen Density and Ki67-Positive Cells in a Forensic Porcine Wound Model.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Cecilie Brandt BeckerSection for Parasitology and Pathobiology, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mette Sif HansenSection for Parasitology and Pathobiology, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren Saxmose NielsenSection for Animal Health and Welfare, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik Elvang JensenSection for Parasitology and Pathobiology, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Use of Machine learning (ML) is rapidly expanding in histopathology, offering the potential to reduce interobserver variability and improve quantitative assessment. However, large datasets and computational resources commonly used in toxicology and human medicine are often unavailable to the veterinary pathologist. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and limitations of applying supervised ML on histopathological samples with limited training data, exemplified by training an ML model to segment the intestinal wall into its histological layers. Materials and methods: The study included 145 piglets from five age groups (4, 14, 25, 49, and 67 days). Full-wall samples from duodenum, jejunum and ileum were collected post-mortem, stained with H&E and digitized. A three-step ML model was trained on 8-15 images: Step 1 identified tissue, Step 2 segmented mucosa from submucosal layers, and Step 3 separated lamina propria from epithelium. Model performance was assessed by comparing AI-generated areas to manual annotations, calculating relative deviation, categorized agreement levels, Intersection over Union, and Pearson correlation coefficients. Qualitative error analyses were used as directions for future training options. Results: A three-step separation model was successfully developed, but showed a significant amount of age-related performance variation, depicted as larger inaccuracies in samples from the younger age-groups, reflecting additional tissue heterogeneity from immature morphology. Classification errors could be categorized into intrinsic limitations (e.g., thresholding issues in tissue identification) and training deficits (e.g., misclassification of goblet cells and crypt abscesses), of which only the latter category could be corrected by adding additional training data. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of ML-based histopathology with limited sample sizes, providing a viable option for veterinary pathologists. Models trained on small datasets require careful supervision, with special emphasis on age-diverse tissue heterogeneity and overfitting. In these cases, ML should be seen as a tool to augment, not replace, expert oversight, ensuring reliable and reproducible quantitative histopathological measures.

Indexed as

digital pathologyhistopathologyintestinal segmentationmachine learningpigs

Identifiers

PMID41122701
PMCPMC12536243

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.