ArticleDigital health
Hybrid DenseNet-U-Net framework for automated grading of renal cell carcinoma.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Precisely grading renal cell carcinoma (RCC) through histopathology slides is a requisite to predict the cancer prognosis and select treatments, however, there is a considerable variability in the assessment between observers. While some AI systems mainly rely on transformer-based and nuclei-centric models, they are computationally very demanding so their clinical use is thus limited. Hence, there is a need for practical and easy-to-understand solutions that can be integrated into digital pathology workflows. Methods: We built a hybrid framework that integrates U-Net-based tumor segmentation, convolutional feature extraction, nuclei-aware descriptors, stain normalization, and attention-based multiple instance learning for slide-level RCC grading. The framework was tested on 3 public datasets (TCGA-ccRCC, RCdpia, MMIST-ccRCC) with a cross-dataset validation approach. The metrics used for the performance evaluation were macro-F1 and quadratic weighted kappa (QWK). Results: The designed method yielded a macro-F1 of 0.94, QWK of 0.92, and accuracy of 0.95. Extracting tumor patches and performing aggregation based on attention resulted in the best improvements. The method was equally effective when tested with different datasets. Most of the errors made by the model were those within the clinical grading range variability. Average time for inference was around one minute and ten seconds per slide. Conclusion: By fine-tuning the convolutional pipeline, one can obtain a RCC grading capability that can be rivaled by very few, yet the model is efficient and interpretable, hence it will continue to be a strong candidate decision-support tool in digital pathology to be clinically deployed.
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.