ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Evaluating cell AI foundation models in kidney pathology with human-in-the-loop enrichment.
Article in Communications medicine, 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.
- Scalable Left Ventricular ROI Annotation for Stress Perfusion Cardiac MRI using Deep Learning with Visual Refinement.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Methods, and Applications.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explainable Pathomics Feature Visualization via Correlation-aware Conditional Feature Editing.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2026Article
- Evaluating New AI Cell Foundation Models on Challenging Kidney Pathology Cases Unaddressed by Previous Foundation Models.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge-scale artificial intelligence foundation models have emerged as promising tools for addressing healthcare challenges, including digital pathology. While many have been developed for complex tasks such as disease diagnosis and tissue quantification using extensive and diverse datasets, their readiness for seemingly simpler tasks, such as nuclei segmentation within a single organ (for example, the kidney), remains unclear. This study answers two questions: How good are current cell foundation models? and How can we improve them?
methodsWe curated a multi-center, multi-disease, and multi-species dataset sampled from 2542 kidney whole slide images. Three state-of-the-art cell foundation models-Cellpose, StarDist, and CellViT-were evaluated. To enhance performance, we developed a human-in-the-loop strategy that distilled multi-model predictions, improving data quality while reducing reliance on pixel-level annotation. Fine-tuning was performed using the enriched datasets, and segmentation performance was quantitatively assessed.
resultsHere we show that cell nuclei segmentation in kidney pathology still requires improvement with more organ-targeted foundation models. Among the evaluated models, CellViT achieves the highest baseline performance, with an F1 score of 0.78. Fine-tuning with enriched data improves all three models, with StarDist achieving the highest F1 score of 0.82. The combination of the foundation model-generated pseudo-labels and a subset of pathologist-corrected "hard" patches yields consistent performance gains across all models.
conclusionsThis study establishes a benchmark for the development and deployment of cell AI foundation models tailored to real-world data. The proposed framework, which leverages foundation models with reduced expert annotation, supports more efficient workflows in clinical pathology.
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.