ArticleCancer research communications2025
Deep Learning Predicts EGFR Mutation Status from Histology Images in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Predicting protein cascade expression from H&E images.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Pan-Cancer Prediction of Genomic Alterations from H&E Whole-Slide Images in a Real-World Clinical Cohort.Genes · 2026Article
- Predicting Protein Cascade Expression from H&E Images.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
EGFR mutation screening in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains variable globally and represents a significant care gap despite international recommendations and molecular testing guidelines. Recently, the use of deep learning (DL) methods to extract clinically actionable features from routine histology images has gained regulatory approval for multiple clinical applications. Therefore, the integration of predictive DL to complement molecular EGFR mutation screening may improve biomarker testing rates in NSCLC. To address this unmet need, we developed and validated Lunit SCOPE Genotype Predictor, a DL model trained and tuned using more than 12,000 whole-slide images, that predicts EGFR mutation status from routine hematoxylin and eosin images. Using a diverse dataset (n = 1,461) that captures histologic subtypes, multiple whole-slide scanners, different scan magnifications, and specimen types, we report an overall area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.905. The model demonstrates robust performance across specimen types (biopsies and surgical resections, 0.804 and 0.912, respectively), histologic subtypes (adenocarcinoma and non-adenocarcinoma, 0.880 and 0.801, respectively), and EGFR mutation subtypes (AUROC, 0.854-0.931). Additionally, across a second independent test set (n = 599) sourced from 11 countries utilizing five different slide scanners, Lunit SCOPE Genotype Predictor achieved a robust AUROC of 0.860. Furthermore, across a multi-scanner test set (n = 2,261), EGFR mutation predictions were concordant in 90.4% of cases among five of six frequently used slide scanners. This validation across diverse clinical settings represents a vital step toward the application of artificial intelligence-based digital pathology tools in routine clinical practice to augment molecular EGFR mutation screening. SIGNIFICANCE: DL predicts EGFR mutations in NSCLC from routine histology images, achieving an overall AUROC of 0.905 and 0.860 in two independent test sets across histologic subtypes, mutation subtypes, and imaging platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.