ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
SmartHisto: Bayesian active learning for histology images.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
Abstract
Accurate and efficient characterization of biological images is crucial for advancing systems biology and medical research. Recent advancements in deep learning and image processing have enabled neural network models to rapidly accelerate image analysis by utilizing large expert-annotated datasets. However, in histopathology, the size of whole-slide images makes expert annotation expensive, limiting the acquisition of sufficiently large annotated datasets and posing a major challenge for developing automated, AI-driven image analysis pipelines. To address this limitation, we propose a novel active learning-based framework to train image segmentation models interactively. Our approach employs a Bayesian neural network to identify informative regions in unlabeled images rather than entire images, making expert labeling more cost-effective. We validate our framework on multiple benchmark datasets with variable staining at fixed magnifications, demonstrating substantial reductions in annotation requirements. Notably, our method achieves a mean IoU of 0.75, significantly outperforming competing approaches, which averaged 0.60.
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.