ArticleDiagnostic pathology2026
Quantification of interstitial fibrosis in digitized kidney biopsies using deep neural networks.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsy is an established marker of disease prognosis and chronicity. Conventional manual grading by pathologists is subjective and variable. Computational methods may reduce this variability.
methodsWe developed a deep learning framework using a ResNet-50 architecture with transfer learning to classify interstitial fibrosis on trichrome-stained renal biopsy images. A total of 2000 biopsies were screened; 162 were excluded due to poor slide quality, leaving 1838 cases (1154 native, 684 transplant). A single expert nephropathologist provided ground-truth fibrosis scores, categorized as < 5% (minimal), 5–25% (mild), 26–50% (moderate), and > 50% (severe).
resultsThe model achieved an overall accuracy of 73% (95% CI: 65–81%) with substantial agreement with the pathologist (κ = 0.68). Stratified analysis showed 78% accuracy for native kidneys and 67% for transplant biopsies.
conclusionOur CNN-based framework shows promise for standardizing fibrosis assessment in kidney biopsies. However, the absence of external validation remains a key limitation, and further multi-center studies are required.
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.