ArticleScientific reports2025
Reproducibility of digital pathology features extracted from deep learning and foundational AI models on sequential tissue slides.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Pathology and the AI-Based Quantification of the Tumor Microenvironment in Gastrointestinal Cancer: From Tumor Budding and Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes to Tertiary Lymphoid Structures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous deep learning (DL) and foundational models (FMs) designed for digital pathology analysis employ advanced feature extraction techniques from digitized hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides obtained from tissue sections. These extracted features may serve as the input for complex models enabling automated classification tasks, slide searching, and other various medical inferences. Subtle variations in morphology observed in distinct cross sections of the same tissue sample may introduce variability that may be of little to no clinical relevance. The reproducibility of features derived from DL models and FMs on ostensibly identical tissue cross sections remains largely unexplored. In this study, we aimed to characterize the reproducibility of features extracted from three sequential cross sections of 50 independent normal prostate samples. Slides were sectioned at approximately 50 μm intervals and we extracted cell-type specific counts, proportions, and spatial features per slide using DL models, along with feature embeddings from popular digital pathology FMs. Reproducibility of the features across sequential cross sections of tissues was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for DL model features, while extracted FM embedding distributions were evaluated via maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), and Wasserstein's distance. The median [IQR] ICC estimates for cell-type specific proportion and spatial features from the cross sections was 0.838 [0.764, 0.897], and 0.873 [0.809, 0.923] respectively. The bootstrapped mean differences of ICC estimates for the features were significantly lower (p-value < 0.05) for distant cross sections compared to the two neighboring cross sections. The feature embeddings derived from state-of-the-art digital pathology FMs showed an overall high agreement with the median [IQR] MMD of 0.06 [0.016, 0.169], and median [IQR] Wasserstein's distance of 0.021 [0.011, 0.038]. These findings demonstrate that the features derived from multiple cross sections of the same tissue exhibit overall high reproducibility, while also illustrating the expected increase in intra-sample variability as a function of physical distance between sections.
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.