ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2026
HISTAI: a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson.
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Melanoma Intelligence: Explainable AI Reveals Histopathologic Aggressiveness as the Dominant Axis of Lymph-Node Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of artificial intelligence in computational pathology depends on both robust algorithms and high-quality, clinically reliable data. Progress in this field has been limited by the scarcity of large, diverse, and well-validated whole slide image (WSI) datasets. To address this gap, HISTAI introduced an open-source resource comprising over 112,000 WSIs across multiple organ systems with associated clinical metadata. Here, we present a pathologist-led evaluation of label accuracy, metadata completeness, and dataset composition across 328 selected cases from this resource. Although HISTAI reports 47,279 cases, we identified only 44,564 unique cases after accounting for missing entries and duplicate records. Basic demographic information, including age and sex, was available for only 55% of cases. Dataset composition was uneven, with dermatopathology accounting for 47.1% of cases and gastrointestinal pathology for 24.0%; however, primary specialty was explicitly reported for only 39.6% of cases, obscuring this imbalance within the provided metadata. Notably, clinical ground truth is recorded in the Conclusion column. Concordance between the dataset's Conclusion and Diagnosis fields was observed in only 20.7% of cases, while 27.1% contained conflicting diagnoses. In a focused review of 198 cases, 30.3% were found to contain unclear or ambiguous diagnostic conclusions, including eight cases in which the diagnosis was incorrect. Assessment of molecular annotation revealed that only 18.9% of analyzed lung and colorectal cancer cases included molecular information. Furthermore, among adult-type diffuse gliomas, none of the 55 cases met current World Health Organisation Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System 5th Edition (WHO CNS5) diagnostic criteria, with IDH mutation status reported in only 15 cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial ambiguities in ground-truth labeling, incomplete molecular annotation, and limited documentation of dataset provenance and ethical oversight. While HISTAI represents a valuable open-source resource, its effective and responsible use requires careful clinical validation and close collaboration between computational researchers and pathologists.
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.