Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41188199›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of pathology2026

Contrastive virtual staining enhances deep learning-based PDAC subtyping from H&E-stained tissue cores.

Maximilian Fischer, Alexander Muckenhuber, Robin Peretzke, Luay Farah, Constantin Ulrich, Sebastian Ziegler, Philipp Schader, Lorenz Feineis, Hanno Gao, Shuhan Xiao and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of pathology, 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. Review
  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

20 authors.

Maximilian Fischer *German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8305-6370
Alexander Muckenhuber *Institute of Pathology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0414-1797
Robin PeretzkeGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6187-3636
Luay FarahBridge Institute of Experimental Tumor Therapy (BIT), Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology (DKTK) and Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Constantin UlrichGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-8170
Sebastian ZieglerGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1693-5586
Philipp SchaderGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lorenz FeineisGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanno GaoGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.
Shuhan XiaoGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5397-814X
Michael GötzGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0984-224X
Marco NoldenGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9629-0564
Katja SteigerInstitute of Pathology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7269-5433
Jens T SievekeBridge Institute of Experimental Tumor Therapy (BIT), Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology (DKTK) and Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8772-4778
Lukas EndrösInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine and Health, TUM University Hospital, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1817-2598
Rickmer BrarenGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, a partnership between DKFZ and School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-6957
Jens KleesiekGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Essen, a partnership between German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8686-0682
Peter SchüfflerInstitute of Pathology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1353-8921
Peter Neher *German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5285-7554
Klaus Maier-Hein *German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Image Computing, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6626-2463

Funding

Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung 13GW0388A.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 410981386Deutschen Konsortium fr Translationale KrebsforschungGerman Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) subtyping typically relies on immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for critical markers like HNF1A and KRT81, a labor-intensive manual staining process that introduces variability. Virtual staining methods offer promising alternatives by generating synthetic IHC images from routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides. However, most current approaches evaluate success by image quality measures rather than assessing diagnostically relevant features. Here, we introduce a novel cycleGAN framework utilizing a contrastive-inspired approach trained on semipaired datasets derived from consecutive tissue sections. Our method significantly enhances PDAC subtyping accuracy based on synthetic IHC images generated from standard H&E inputs, improving the classification F1-score from 0.66 to 0.77 for KRT81 and from 0.61 to 0.73 for HNF1A, compared with classification directly on H&E images. This approach also substantially outperforms baseline CycleGAN models. These results underscore the clinical potential of contrastive virtual staining to streamline PDAC diagnostics and improve their robustness. © 2025 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDeep LearningPancreatic DuctsPancreatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorDatasets as TopicEosine Yellowish-(YS)HematoxylinHepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-alphaHumansImmunohistochemistryKeratins, Hair-SpecificKeratins, Type IIBiomarkers, TumorEosine Yellowish-(YS)HematoxylinHepatocyte Nuclear Factor 1-alphaHNF1A protein, humanKeratins, Hair-SpecificKeratins, Type IIKRT81 protein, humancontrastive learningCycleGANdigital pathologyH&EIHCPDAC subtypingvirtual staining

Identifiers

PMID41188199
PMCPMC12699241

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.