Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41146682›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025

Evaluating the robustness of slide-level AI predictions on out-of-focus whole slide images: A retrospective observational study.

Ho Heon Kim, Young Sin Ko, Won Chan Jeong, Seokju Yun, Kyungeun Kim

Abstract 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. 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

5 authors.

Ho Heon KimAI R&D Center, Seegene Medical Foundation, Seoul, South Korea.
Young Sin KoAI R&D Center, Seegene Medical Foundation, Seoul, South Korea.
Won Chan JeongAI R&D Center, Seegene Medical Foundation, Seoul, South Korea.
Seokju YunAI R&D Center, Seegene Medical Foundation, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyungeun KimAI R&D Center, Seegene Medical Foundation, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Blurriness in whole slide images (WSIs) is a common issue in digital pathology. Whereas severe blurriness is known to degrade artificial intelligence (AI) model performance, the impact of typical levels of blurriness observed in real-world settings remains unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of WSI blurring on robustness of AI predictions in real-world settings. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using 7529 WSIs and the corresponding AI predictions from 4 AI models trained on data from 2 scanners and 2 organs. The WSIs were categorized into concordant and discordant groups based on the AI prediction accuracy. Analyses included: (1) comparing blur metrics between groups, (2) determining the odds ratio between the proportions of blurry patch in WSIs and prediction concordance, (3) assessing model performance across various blur intensities, and (4) examining the similarity of slide- and patch-level embeddings across focal planes using Results: Regarding each organ-scanner pair, the average wavelet score and Laplacian variance did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups and no significant association was observed between prediction concordance and the proportion of blurry regions ( Conclusions: These findings empirically suggest that the typical levels of WSI blurriness encountered in clinical practice may not significantly compromise the robustness of slide-level AI classification.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBlurrinessImage artifactWhole slide image

Identifiers

PMID41146682
PMCPMC12554180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.