ArticleScientific reports2026
The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology.
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.
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.
- Finding Holes: Pathologist-Level Performance Using AI for Cribriform Morphology Detection in Prostate Cancer.European urology open science · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.