Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42129415›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology.

Sol Erika Boman, Nita Mulliqi, Anders Blilie, Xiaoyi Ji, Kelvin Szolnoky, Einar Gudlaugsson, Emiel A M Janssen, Svein R Kjosavik, José Asenjo, Marcello Gambacorta and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Sol Erika BomanDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nita MulliqiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders BlilieDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Xiaoyi JiDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kelvin SzolnokyDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Einar GudlaugssonDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Emiel A M JanssenDepartment of Pathology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Svein R KjosavikThe General Practice and Care Coordination Research Group, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
José AsenjoDepartment of Pathology, Synlab, Madrid, Spain.
Marcello GambacortaDepartment of Pathology, Synlab, Brescia, Italy.
Paolo LibrettiDepartment of Pathology, Synlab, Brescia, Italy.
Marcin BraunDepartment of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Radzislaw KordekDepartment of Pathology, Chair of Oncology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Roman ŁowickiDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Kristina HotakainenDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Päivi VäreDepartment of Pathology, Mehiläinen Länsi-Pohja Hospital, Kemi, Finland.
Bodil Ginnerup PedersenDepartment of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Karina Dalsgaard SørensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Benedicte Parm UlhøiDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lars EgevadDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kimmo KartasaloDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, SciLifeLab, Stockholm, Sweden. kimmo.kartasalo@ki.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue detection is a crucial first step in most digital pathology applications. By applying image segmentation algorithms, all tissue is delineated and background discarded from further analyses, improving both computational efficiency and analytical results. Details of the segmentation algorithm are rarely reported, and there is a lack of studies investigating the downstream effects of a poor segmentation algorithm. Disregarding tissue detection quality could jeopardize patient safety if diagnostically relevant parts of the specimen are excluded from analysis in clinical applications. This study aims to determine whether performance of downstream tasks is sensitive to the tissue detection method, and to compare the performance of a classical and an AI-based tissue detection approach. To this end, we trained an AI model for Gleason grading of prostate cancer in whole slide images (WSIs) using two different tissue detection algorithms: thresholding (classical) and UNet++ (AI). A total of 33,823 WSIs scanned on seven digital pathology scanners were used to train the segmentation AI model. The downstream Gleason grading algorithm was trained and tested using 70,524 WSIs from 13 clinical sites scanned on 13 different scanners. On the slides where tissue could be detected by both algorithms, no significant difference in overall Gleason grading performance was observed. There was a decrease from 118 (0.43%) to 24 (0.09%) fully undetected tissue samples when switching from thresholding-based tissue detection to AI-based, suggesting this AI model may be more reliable than the classical model for avoiding total failures on slides with unusual appearance. Moreover, tissue detection dependent clinically significant variations in AI grading were observed in 3.5% of malignant slides, highlighting the role of tissue detection for optimal clinical performance of diagnostic AI.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAlgorithmsDetection AlgorithmsHumansMaleNeoplasm Grading

Identifiers

PMID42129415
PMCPMC13172392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.