The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Application of deep learning algorithms to whole-slide pathology images can potentially improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Objective: Assess the performance of automated deep learning algorithms at detecting metastases in hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections of lymph nodes of women with breast cancer and compare it with pathologists' diagnoses in a diagnostic setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Researcher challenge competition (CAMELYON16) to develop automated solutions for detecting lymph node metastases (November 2015-November 2016). A training data set of whole-slide images from 2 centers in the Netherlands with (n = 110) and without (n = 160) nodal metastases verified by immunohistochemical staining were provided to challenge participants to build algorithms. Algorithm performance was evaluated in an independent test set of 129 whole-slide images (49 with and 80 without metastases). The same test set of corresponding glass slides was also evaluated by a panel of 11 pathologists with time constraint (WTC) from the Netherlands to ascertain likelihood of nodal metastases for each slide in a flexible 2-hour session, simulating routine pathology workflow, and by 1 pathologist without time constraint (WOTC). Exposures: Deep learning algorithms submitted as part of a challenge competition or pathologist interpretation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of specific metastatic foci and the absence vs presence of lymph node metastasis in a slide or image using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The 11 pathologists participating in the simulation exercise rated their diagnostic confidence as definitely normal, probably normal, equivocal, probably tumor, or definitely tumor. Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the algorithms ranged from 0.556 to 0.994. The top-performing algorithm achieved a lesion-level, true-positive fraction comparable with that of the pathologist WOTC (72.4% [95% CI, 64.3%-80.4%]) at a mean of 0.0125 false-positives per normal whole-slide image. For the whole-slide image classification task, the best algorithm (AUC, 0.994 [95% CI, 0.983-0.999]) performed significantly better than the pathologists WTC in a diagnostic simulation (mean AUC, 0.810 [range, 0.738-0.884]; P < .001). The top 5 algorithms had a mean AUC that was comparable with the pathologist interpreting the slides in the absence of time constraints (mean AUC, 0.960 [range, 0.923-0.994] for the top 5 algorithms vs 0.966 [95% CI, 0.927-0.998] for the pathologist WOTC). Conclusions and Relevance: In the setting of a challenge competition, some deep learning algorithms achieved better diagnostic performance than a panel of 11 pathologists participating in a simulation exercise designed to mimic routine pathology workflow; algorithm performance was comparable with an expert pathologist interpreting whole-slide images without time constraints. Whether this approach has clinical utility will require evaluation in a clinical setting.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
38 Own result · 16 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given · 3 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the slide level in task 2, the pathologist WOTC achieved a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI, 86.9%-100.0%), a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%),and an AUC of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.927-0.998).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the slide level, the leading algorithms performed better than the pathologists WTC in the simulation exercise.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The simulated time-constrained exercise mimics routine diagnostic pathology workflow.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pathologist WOTC | 0.724 | 0.966 | | | | Expert pathologist who assessed”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They achieved a mean sensitivity of 62.8% (95% CI, 58.9%-71.9%)with a mean specificity of 98.5% (95% CI, 97.9%-99.1%).The mean AUC was 0.810 (range, 0.738-0.884)”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No false-positives were produced in task 1 (ie, nontumorous tissue indicated as metastasis) by the pathologist WOTC”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This AUC exceeded the mean performance of the pathologists WTC (mean AUC, 0.810 [range, 0.738-0.884]) in the diagnostic simulation exercise (P < .001,calculated using MRMC ROC analysis 33 ) (Table 2).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Task 2: Whole-Slide Image Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Algorithms based on manually engineered features performed less well.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the slide level in task 2, the pathologist WOTC achieved a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI, 86.9%-100.0%), a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%),and an AUC of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.927-0.998).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the setting of a challenge competition, some deep learning algorithms achieved better diagnostic performance than a panel of 11 pathologists participating in a simulation exercise designed to mimic routine pathology workflow”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This algorithm achieved an overall AUC of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.941-0.999),and yielded the highest AUC in detecting macrometastases (AUC, 1.0).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Task 2: Whole-Slide Image Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the 32 algorithms submitted to CAMELYON16 used a discriminative learning approach to identify metastases in whole-slide images.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean pathologists WTC | | 0.810 | | | | The mean performance of 11”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, deep learning-based algorithms performed significantly better than other methods: the 19 topperforming algorithms in both tasks all used deep convolutional neural networks as the underlying methodology (Table 2).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Algorithm Performance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An earlier submission by this team, HMS and MGH I, achieved an overall AUC of 0.964 (95% CI, 0.928-0.989)and ranked third.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Task 2: Whole-Slide Image Classification
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but 27.6% of individual metastases were not identified (lesion level, truepositive fraction, 72.4% [95% CI, 64.3%-80.4%])that manifested when IHC staining was performed.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pathologist did not produce any false-positives and achieved a true-positive fraction of 0.724 for detecting and localizing metastatic regions.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cross-sectional analyses that evaluated 32 algorithms submitted as part of a challenge competition, 7 deep learning algorithms showed greater discrimination than a panel of 11 pathologists in a simulated time-constrained diagnostic setting, with an area under the curve of 0.994 (best algorithm) vs 0.884 (best pathologist).”
- Also stated in: § Task 2: Whole-Slide Image Classification · plain
“Overall, 7 of the 32 submitted algorithms had significantly higher AUCs than the pathologists WTC (see Table 2 for the individual P values calculated using MRMC ROC analysis).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“The CAMELYON16 challenge demonstrated that some deep learning algorithms were able to achieve a better AUC than a panel of 11 pathologists WTC participating in a simulation exercise for detection of lymph node metastases of breast cancer.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Key Points
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Task 2: Whole-Slide Image Classification · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best algorithm achieved similar true-positive fraction as the pathologist WOTC when producing a mean of 1.25 false-positive lesions in 100 whole-slide images and performed better when allowing for slightly more falsepositive findings.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set of images was randomly divided into a training (n = 270) and a test set (n = 129; details in Table 1).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Reference Standard
plainn = 270- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“system generalization and performance seemed more important.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Downloaded From: by a Radboud University Nijmegen User on 12/12/2017
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Previous studies on diagnostic imaging tasks in which deep learning reached human-level performance, such as detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs, used a reference standard based on the consensus of human experts.3”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Downloaded From: by a Radboud University Nijmegen User on 12/12/2017
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test data set on which algorithms and pathologists were evaluated was enriched with cases containing metastases and, specifically, micrometastases and, thus, is not directly comparable with the mix of cases pathologists encounter in clinical practice.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Most sentinel lymph nodes do not contain metastases.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“pathologists may rely on IHC staining and the knowledge that all hematoxylin and eosin-slides with negative findings will undergo additional review with the use of IHC.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In most hospitals, pathologists request additional immunohistochemical staining in equivocal cases.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessment without time constraint does not yield a fair measure of the accuracy of the routine diagnostic process.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Panel of Pathologists With Time Constraint
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“staining, yielding an independent reference against which human pathologists could also be compared.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Downloaded From: by a Radboud University Nijmegen User on 12/12/2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Less time constraint on task completion may increase the accuracy of SLN diagnostic review.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“algorithm runtime was not recorded nor included as a factor in the evaluation, but it might influence the suitability for use in, for example, frozen section analysis.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the simulation exercise invited pathologists WTC to review a series of 129 hematoxylin and eosinstained slides in about 2 hours to determine the presence of macroscopic or microscopic SLN metastasis.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thepercentilebootstrapmethod was used to construct 95% CIs for FROC true-positive fraction scores (FROC scores) and AUCs.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funders and sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Funding
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pathologists WTC assessed the same set of glass slides used for testing the algorithms (which used digitized whole-slide images of these glass slides).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Panel of Pathologists With Time Constraint
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“IHC is the most accurate method for metastasis evaluation and has little interpretation variability. [7][8]][9]”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Reference Standard
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7][8]][9]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“algorithms were specifically trained to discriminate between normal and cancerous tissue in the background of lymph node histological architecture, but they might be unable to identify rare events such as co-occurring pathologies (eg, lymphoma, sarcoma, or infection).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The detection of other pathologies in the SLN, which is relevant in routine diagnostics, was not included in this study.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No prior data were available for the performance of algorithms in this task.Therefore, no power analysis was used to predetermine the sample size.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: No prior data were available for algorithm performance in this task.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, every pathologist was given 1 single hematoxylin and eosin-stained slide per patient to determine the presence or absence of breast cancer metastasis.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, in which the P values are multiplied by the number of comparisons (32; comparison of the 32 submitted algorithms with the panel of pathologists).”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although feasible in the context of this simulation, this does not represent the work pace in other settings.”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The clinical value of isolated tumor cells in a sentinel lymph node is disputed.
“Because the clinical value of having only isolated tumor cells in an SLN is disputed, we did not include such slides in our study”
The paper relies on this without support.
The simulated time-constrained exercise mimics routine diagnostic pathology workflow.
“To mimic routine diagnostic pathology workflow, we asked 11 pathologists to independently assess the 129 slides in the test set in”
The paper relies on this without support.
The panel of 11 pathologists is representative of pathologists in routine practice.
“The panel of the 11 pathologists (mean age, 47.7 years [range, 31-61]) included 1 resident pathologist (3-year resident) and 10 practicing pathologists”
The paper relies on this without support.
Comparing algorithms on whole-slide images with pathologists on glass slides is valid despite the different modalities.
“The panel of 11 pathologists with time constraint (pathologists WTC), however, did their assessment on the corresponding glass slides for those images because diagnosing is most commonly done using a microscope in pathology labs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the Netherlands, use of immunohistochemistry is mandatory for cases with negative findings on H&E-stained slides.
“The setting resembled diagnostic practice in the Netherlands, where use of IHC is mandatory for cases with negative findings on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No prior data were available for algorithm performance in this task.
“No prior data were available for the performance of algorithms in this task.Therefore, no power analysis was used to predetermine the sample size.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most sentinel lymph nodes do not contain metastases.
“Given the reality that most SLNs do not contain metastases, the data set curation was needed to achieve a well-rounded representation of what is encountered in clinical practice without including an exorbitant number of slides.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In real clinical settings, sections from multiple levels are evaluated for every lymph node.
“In a real clinical setting, sections from multiple levels are evaluated for every lymph node.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In most hospitals, pathologists request additional immunohistochemical staining in equivocal cases.
“in most hospitals pathologists request additional IHC staining in equivocal cases.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Medical research is no exception, as CNN has achieved expert-level performances in various fields. Gulshan et al. [4], Esteva et al. [5], and Ehteshami Bejnordi et al. [6] demonstrated the potential of deep learning for diabetic retinopathy screening, skin lesion classification, and lymph node metastasis detection, respectively.”
From Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In a notable study, Bejnordi et al. (2017) found that certain deep learning algorithms surpassed a group of 11 pathologists in detecting lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients.”
From A perspective on integrating digital pathology, proteomics, clinical data and AI analytics in cancer research (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“This evaluation includes comparison with a reference panel of pathologists working on the same data set with predefined time constraints designed to mimic routine pathology workflows, where many of the models in the challenge exhibited higher performance than the panel of pathologists.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
In the citing paper
“The second option is deidentification and public release of data, usually via a consortium model.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Downloaded From: by a Radboud University Nijmegen User on 12/12/2017
“Task 2 was measured on the 129 whole-slide images (for algorithms and the pathologist WTC) and corresponding glass slides (for 11 pathologists WOTC) in the test data set”
§ Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer > Task 1: Identification of Individual Metastases
“Algorithms assessed whole-slide images, as did the pathologist WOTC.The panel of 11 pathologists with time constraint (pathologists WTC), however, did their assessment on the corresponding glass slides”
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition
Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.1556 · Cited by 114,148
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 · Cited by 99,404
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589
Going deeper with convolutions
Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., & Rabinovich, A. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 · Cited by 48,562
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022627411411 · Cited by 34,565
Textural Features for Image Classification
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314 · Cited by 22,886
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 1,020
Impact of a deep learning assistant on the histopathologic classification of liver cancer
Kiani, A., Uyumazturk, B., Rajpurkar, P., Wang, A., Gao, R., Jones, E., Yu, Y., Langlotz, C. P., Ball, R. L., Montine, T. J., et al. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0232-8 · Cited by 325
Pathologist-level interpretable whole-slide cancer diagnosis with deep learning
Zhang, Z., Chen, P., McGough, M., Xing, F., Wang, C., Bui, M., Xie, Y., Sapkota, M., Cui, L., Dhillon, J., et al. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0052-1 · Cited by 311
Saillard, C., Schmauch, B., Laifa, O., Moarii, M., Toldo, S., Zaslavskiy, M., Pronier, E., Laurent, A., Amaddeo, G., Regnault, H., et al. (2020) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.31207 · Cited by 332
Glioma Grading on Conventional MR Images: A Deep Learning Study With Transfer Learning
Yang, Y., Yan, L., Zhang, X., Han, Y., Nan, H., Hu, Y., Hu, B., Yan, S., Zhang, J., Cheng, D.-L., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00804 · Cited by 317
Liu, H., Li, L., Wormstone, I. M., Qiao, C., Zhang, C., Liu, P., Li, S., Wang, H., Mou, D., Pang, R., et al. (2019) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.3501 · Cited by 307
AUC Maximization in the Era of Big Data and AI: A Survey
Yang, T., & Ying, Y. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3554729 · Cited by 326
Deep Learning Assisted Efficient AdaBoost Algorithm for Breast Cancer Detection and Early Diagnosis
Zheng, J., Lin, D., Gao, Z., Wang, S., He, M., & Fan, J. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2993536 · Cited by 329
Innovations in Genomics and Big Data Analytics for Personalized Medicine and Health Care: A Review
Hassan, M., Awan, F. M., Naz, A., deAndrés-Galiana, E. J., Alvarez, O., Cernea, A., Fernández-Brillet, L., Fernández-Martínez, J. L., & Kloczkowski, A. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms23094645 · Cited by 317
Xu, J., Yang, P., Xue, S., Sharma, B., Sanchez-Martin, M., Wang, F., Beaty, K. A., Dehan, E., & Parikh, B. (2019) · Human Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00439-019-01970-5 · Cited by 305
Machine Learning for Health Services Researchers
Doupé, P., Faghmous, J. H., & Basu, S. (2019) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.012 · Cited by 311
Gulshan, V., Rajan, R. P., Widner, K., Wu, D., Wubbels, P., Rhodes, T., Whitehouse, K., Coram, M., Corrado, G., Ramasamy, K., et al. (2019) · JAMA Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.2004 · Cited by 303
Aoki, T., Yamada, A., Aoyama, K., Saito, H., Tsuboi, A., Nakada, A., Niikura, R., Fujishiro, M., Oka, S., Ishihara, S., et al. (2018) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.027 · Cited by 307
Artificial intelligence in diagnostic pathology
Shafi, S., & Parwani, A. V. (2023) · Diagnostic Pathology · doi:10.1186/s13000-023-01375-z · Cited by 371
AI-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD): the latest review to read first
Fujita, H. (2020) · Radiological Physics and Technology · doi:10.1007/s12194-019-00552-4 · Cited by 324
Diao, J. A., Wang, J. K., Chui, W. F., Mountain, V., Gullapally, S. C., Srinivasan, R., Mitchell, R. N., Glass, B., Hoffman, S., Rao, S. K., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21896-9 · Cited by 289
Self-citationDeep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases From Breast Cancer
Golden, J. A. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14580 · Cited by 313
Geras, K. J., Mann, R. M., & Moy, L. P. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182627 · Cited by 304
Raman spectroscopy in cell biology and microbiology
Pezzotti, G. (2021) · Journal of Raman Spectroscopy · doi:10.1002/jrs.6204 · Cited by 296
Ahmad, Z., Rahim, S., Zubair, M., & Abdul-Ghafar, J. (2021) · Diagnostic Pathology · doi:10.1186/s13000-021-01085-4 · Cited by 293
Self supervised contrastive learning for digital histopathology
Ciga, O., Xu, T., & Martel, A. L. (2022) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100198 · Cited by 294
Going Deep in Medical Image Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Challenges, and Future Directions
Altaf, F., Islam, S. M. S., Akhtar, N., & Janjua, N. K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2929365 · Cited by 301
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Where Are We Now?
Kulkarni, S., Seneviratne, N., Baig, M. S., & Khan, A. H. A. (2019) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.10.001 · Cited by 301
Towards a new generation of artificial intelligence in China
Wu, F., Lu, C., Zhu, M., Chen, H., Zhu, J., Yu, K., Li, L., Li, M., Chen, Q., Li, X., et al. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0183-4 · Cited by 287
Self-citationChen, Z., Lin, L., Wu, C., Li, C., Xu, R., & Sun, Y. H. (2021) · 癌症：英文版 · doi:10.1002/cac2.12215 · Cited by 298
Stidham, R. W., Liu, W., Bishu, S., Rice, M. D., Higgins, P. D. R., Zhu, J., Nallamothu, B. K., & Waljee, A. K. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3963 · Cited by 285
Hekler, A., Utikal, J. S., Enk, A. H., Solass, W., Schmitt, M., Klode, J., Schadendorf, D., Sondermann, W., Franklin, C., Bestvater, F., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.06.012 · Cited by 285
Li, X., Li, C., Rahaman, M. M., Sun, H., Li, X., Wu, J., Yao, Y., & Grzegorzek, M. (2022) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10121-0 · Cited by 297
Deep learning-based survival prediction for multiple cancer types using histopathology images
Wulczyn, E., Steiner, D. F., Xu, Z., Sadhwani, A., Wang, H., Flament-Auvigne, I., Mermel, C. H., Chen, P.-H. C., Liu, Y., & Stumpe, M. C. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233678 · Cited by 266
“In recent years, deep learning has been shown to recognize objects[6] and diagnose diseases from medical images[7,8] with impressive accuracy.”
BackgroundWILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts
Koh, P. W., Sagawa, S., Marklund, H., Xie, S. M., Zhang, M., Balsubramani, A., Hu, W., Yasunaga, M., Phillips, R. L., Gao, I., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.07421 · Cited by 518
“However, this practice has not been ubiquitous due to the difficulty of obtaining data spanning multiple hospitals (Esteva et al., 2017; Bejnordi et al., 2017; Codella et al., 2019; Veta et al., 2019).”
McGenity, C., Clarke, E. L., Jennings, C., Matthews, G., Cartlidge, C., Freduah-Agyemang, H., Stocken, D. D., & Treanor, D. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01106-8 · Cited by 290
Kuo, W., Häne, C., Mukherjee, P., Malik, J., & Yuh, E. L. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1908021116 · Cited by 281
How to develop machine learning models for healthcare
Chen, P.-H. C., Liu, Y., & Peng, L. (2019) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0345-0 · Cited by 274
Translational AI and deep learning in diagnostic pathology
Serag, A., Ion-Margineanu, A., Qureshi, H., McMillan, R., Saint Martin, M.-J., Diamond, J., O'Reilly, P., & Hamilton, P. (2019) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2019.00185 · Cited by 274
Yamada, M., Saito, Y., Imaoka, H., Saiko, M., Yamada, S., Kondo, H., Takamaru, H., Sakamoto, T., Sese, J., Kuchiba, A., et al. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50567-5 · Cited by 269
Gómez-Valverde, J. J., Antón, A., Fatti, G., Liefers, B. J., Cabarcos, A. H., Santos, A., Sánchez, C. I., & Ledesma‐Carbayo, M. J. (2019) · Biomedical Optics Express · doi:10.1364/boe.10.000892 · Cited by 270
Human–machine partnership with artificial intelligence for chest radiograph diagnosis
Patel, B. N., Rosenberg, L., Willcox, G., Baltaxe, D., Lyons, M., Irvin, J., Rajpurkar, P., Amrhein, T., Gupta, R., Halabi, S., et al. (2019) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0189-7 · Cited by 254
Artificial intelligence assists precision medicine in cancer treatment
Liao, J., Li, X., Gan, Y., Han, S., Rong, P., Wang, W., Li, W., & Zhou, L. P. (2023) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.998222 · Cited by 280
Ullah, A., Anwar, S. M., Li, J., Nadeem, L., Mahmood, T., Rehman, A. U., & Saba, T. (2023) · Complex & Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1007/s40747-023-01175-4 · Cited by 333
Robust and data-efficient generalization of self-supervised machine learning for diagnostic imaging
Azizi, S., Culp, L., Freyberg, J., Mustafa, B., Baur, S., Kornblith, S., Chen, T., Tomasev, N., Mitrović, J., Strachan, P., et al. (2023) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-023-01049-7 · Cited by 250
Neural Image Compression for Gigapixel Histopathology Image Analysis
Tellez, D., Litjens, G. J. S., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., & Ciompi, F. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2019.2936841 · Cited by 246
Self-citationBig data in basic and translational cancer research
Jiang, P., Sinha, S., Aldape, K., Hannenhalli, S., Sahinalp, C., & Ruppin, E. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-022-00502-0 · Cited by 254
Artificial intelligence for precision medicine in neurodevelopmental disorders
Uddin, M. J., Wang, Y., & Woodbury‐Smith, M. (2019) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0191-0 · Cited by 261
MURA: Large Dataset for Abnormality Detection in Musculoskeletal RadiographsPreprint
Rajpurkar, P., Irvin, J., Bagul, A., Ding, D. Y., Duan, T., Mehta, H., Yang, B., Zhu, K., Laird, D., Ball, R. L., et al. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.06957 · Cited by 470
Machine Learning in Orthopedics: A Literature Review
Cabitza, F., Locoro, A., & Banfi, G. (2018) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2018.00075 · Cited by 257
Artificial intelligence outperforms pulmonologists in the interpretation of pulmonary function tests
Topalovic, M., Das, N., Burgel, P.-R., Daenen, M., Derom, E., Haenebalcke, C., Janssen, R., Kerstjens, H. A. M., Liistro, G., Louis, R., et al. (2019) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.01660-2018 · Cited by 238
Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Will the Value Match the Hype?
Emanuel, E. J., & Wachter, R. M. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.4914 · Cited by 237
Weakly-supervised learning for lung carcinoma classification using deep learning
Kanavati, F., Toyokawa, G., Momosaki, S., Rambeau, M., Kozuma, Y., Shoji, F., Yamazaki, K., Takeo, S., Iizuka, O., & Tsuneki, M. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66333-x · Cited by 250
A generalized deep learning framework for whole-slide image segmentation and analysis
Khened, M., Kori, A., Rajkumar, H., Krishnamurthi, G., & Srinivasan, B. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90444-8 · Cited by 255
The promise of digital healthcare technologies
Yeung, A. W. K., Torkamani, A., Butte, A. J., Glicksberg, B. S., Schuller, B. W., Rodríguez, B., Ting, D. S. W., Bates, D. W., Schaden, E., Peng, H., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1196596 · Cited by 284
Self-citationFederated learning improves site performance in multicenter deep learning without data sharing
Sarma, K. V., Harmon, S., Sanford, T., Roth, H. R., Xu, Z., Tetreault, J., Xu, D., Flores, M. G., Raman, A. G., Kulkarni, R., et al. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa341 · Cited by 242
Pathologist-level classification of histopathological melanoma images with deep neural networks
Hekler, A., Utikal, J. S., Enk, A. H., Berking, C., Klode, J., Schadendorf, D., Jansen, P., Franklin, C., Holland-Letz, T., Krahl, D., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.021 · Cited by 231
Coccia, M. (2019) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101198 · Cited by 248
Qaiser, T., Tsang, Y., Taniyama, D., Sakamoto, N., Nakane, K., Epstein, D. B. A., & Rajpoot, N. (2019) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2019.03.014 · Cited by 221
Tang, Z., Chuang, K. V., DeCarli, C. S., Jin, L., Beckett, L. A., Keiser, M. J., & Dugger, B. N. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10212-1 · Cited by 234
Predicting treatment response from longitudinal images using multi-task deep learning
Jin, C., Yu, H., Ke, J., Ding, P., Yi, Y., Jiang, X., Duan, X., Tang, J., Chang, D. T., Wu, X., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22188-y · Cited by 246
Yang, J., Ju, J., Guo, L., Ji, B., Shi, S., Yang, Z., Gao, S., Yuan, X., Tian, G., Liang, Y., et al. (2022) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2021.12.028 · Cited by 233
Chen, C., Chen, C., Yu, W.-H., Chen, S. S., Chang, Y., Hsu, T., Hsiao, M., Yeh, C., & Chen, C. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21467-y · Cited by 221
Hashimoto, N., Fukushima, D., Koga, R., Takagi, Y., Ko, K., Kohno, K., Nakaguro, M., Nakamura, S., Hontani, H., & Takeuchi, I. (2020) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00391 · Cited by 251
Lung cancer scRNA-seq and lipidomics reveal aberrant lipid metabolism for early-stage diagnosis
Wang, G., Qiu, M., Xing, X., Zhou, J., Yao, H., Li, M., Yin, R. H., Hou, Y., Li, Y., Pan, S., et al. (2022) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abk2756 · Cited by 222
Bejnordi, B. E., Mullooly, M., Pfeiffer, R. M., Fan, S., Vacek, P. M., Weaver, D. L., Herschorn, S. D., Brinton, L. A., van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., et al. (2018) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-018-0073-z · Cited by 219
Self-citationAhmad, O. F., Soares, A. S., Mazomenos, E. B., Brandão, P., Vega, R., Seward, E. W., Stoyanov, D. V., Chand, M., & Lovat, L. B. (2018) · The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(18)30282-6 · Cited by 213
Peng, J., Kang, S., Ning, Z., Deng, H., Shen, J., Xu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhao, W., Li, X., 龚五星, et al. (2019) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06318-1 · Cited by 218
Xiao-min, Z., Li, C., Rahaman, M. M., Yao, Y., Ai, S., Sun, C., Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., Li, M., Li, X., et al. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2993788 · Cited by 228
Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Personalized Medicine
Ahn, J. S., Shin, S., Yang, S., Park, E. K., Kim, K. H., Cho, S. I., Ock, C., & Kim, S. (2023) · Journal of Breast Cancer · doi:10.4048/jbc.2023.26.e45 · Cited by 281
Review of multimodal machine learning approaches in healthcare
Krones, F., Marikkar, U., Parsons, G., Szmul, A., & Mahdi, A. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102690 · Cited by 235
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Breast Cancer Histology Image Analysis
Rakhlin, A., Shvets, A. A., Iglovikov, V., & Kalinin, A. A. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93000-8_83 · Cited by 322
Improved breast cancer histological grading using deep learning
Wang, Y., Acs, B., Robertson, S., Liu, B., Solorzano, L., Wählby, C., Hartman, J., & Rantalainen, M. (2022) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.007 · Cited by 211
Dou, Q., Ouyang, C., Chen, C., Chen, H., Glocker, B., Zhuang, X., & Heng, P. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2929258 · Cited by 237
Self-citationHealth Care Students’ Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence: Countrywide Survey in Canada
Teng, M., Singla, R., Yau, O., Lamoureux, D., Gupta, A., Hu, Z., Hu, R., Aissiou, A., Eaton, S., Hamm, C., et al. (2022) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/33390 · Cited by 214
Rise of the Machines: Advances in Deep Learning for Cancer Diagnosis
Levine, A., Schlosser, C. L., Grewal, J., Coope, R., Jones, S. J. M., & Yip, S. S. F. (2019) · Trends in cancer · doi:10.1016/j.trecan.2019.02.002 · Cited by 208
Overview of Deep Learning in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Min, J. K., Kwak, M. S., & Cha, J. M. (2019) · Gut and Liver · doi:10.5009/gnl18384 · Cited by 206
Predicting gastric cancer outcome from resected lymph node histopathology images using deep learning
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Gao, Y., Zhang, H., Guan, Z., Dong, Z., Zheng, Y., Jiang, J., Yang, H., Wang, L., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21674-7 · Cited by 199
Jiang, L., Wu, Z., Xu, X., Zhan, Y., Jin, X., Wang, L., & Qiu, Y. (2021) · Journal of International Medical Research · doi:10.1177/03000605211000157 · Cited by 232
Artificial intelligence for precision oncology: beyond patient stratification
Azuaje, F. J. (2019) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-019-0078-1 · Cited by 207
Deep Learning Reveals Cancer Metastasis and Therapeutic Antibody Targeting in the Entire Body
Pan, C., Schoppe, O., Parra-Damas, A., Cai, R., Todorov, M. I., Gondi, G., von Neubeck, B., Böğürcü-Seidel, N., Seidel, S., Sleiman, K., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.11.013 · Cited by 206
Gertych, A., Świderska-Chadaj, Ż., Ma, Z., Ing, N., Markiewicz, T., Cierniak, S., Salemi, H., Guzman, S. J., Walts, A. E., & Knudsen, B. S. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37638-9 · Cited by 189
Shi, J.-Y., Wang, X., Ding, G., Dong, Z., Han, J., Guan, Z., Ma, L., Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Yu, G., et al. (2020) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320930 · Cited by 198
Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: Techniques and applications
Ibrahim, A., Gamble, P., Jaroensri, R., Abdelsamea, M. M., Mermel, C. H., Chen, P.-H. C., & Rakha, E. A. (2020) · The Breast · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2019.12.007 · Cited by 202
“Babaketal.,2017 detected lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients with a higher diagnostic achievement over 11 pathologists [33]”
BackgroundMethodFontana, M. A., Lyman, S. L., Sarker, G. K., Padgett, D. E., & MacLean, C. H. (2019) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000000687 · Cited by 195
Jayapandian, C. P., Chen, Y. M., Janowczyk, A. R., Palmer, M. B., Cassol, C. A., Sekulic, M., Hodgin, J. B., Zee, J., Hewitt, S. M., O’Toole, J., et al. (2020) · Kidney International · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2020.07.044 · Cited by 185
Quantitative Phase Imaging and Artificial Intelligence: A Review
Jo, Y., Cho, H., Lee, S., Choi, G., Kim, G., Min, H., & Park, Y. (2018) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics · doi:10.1109/jstqe.2018.2859234 · Cited by 194
Design of self-assembly dipeptide hydrogels and machine learning via their chemical features
Li, F., Han, J., Cao, T., Lam, W., Fan, B., Tang, W., Chen, S., Fok, K. L., & Li, L. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1903376116 · Cited by 198
High-accuracy prostate cancer pathology using deep learning
Tolkach, Y., Dohmgörgen, T., Toma, M. I., & Kristiansen, G. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0200-7 · Cited by 185
Lee, H., Yoon, H., Nam, K., Cho, Y. J., Kim, T. K., Kim, W. H., & Bahk, J.-H. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm7100322 · Cited by 201
Tromp, J., Seekings, P. J., Hung, C.-L., Iversen, M. B., Frost, M. J., Ouwerkerk, W., Jiang, Z., Eisenhaber, F., Goh, R. S. M., Zhao, H., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00235-1 · Cited by 217
Deep Learning in Image Cytometry: A Review
Gupta, A., Harrison, P. J., Wieslander, H., Pielawski, N., Kartasalo, K., Partel, G., Solorzano, L., Suveer, A., Klemm, A. H., Spjuth, O., et al. (2018) · Cytometry Part A · doi:10.1002/cyto.a.23701 · Cited by 194
Botlagunta, M., Botlagunta, M. D., Myneni, M. B., Lakshmi, D., Nayyar, A., Gullapalli, J. S., & Shah, M. A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-27548-w · Cited by 204
Predicting Breast Cancer by Applying Deep Learning to Linked Health Records and Mammograms
Akselrod-Ballin, A., Chorev, M., Shoshan, Y., Spiro, A., Hazan, A., Melamed, R., Barkan, E., Herzel, E., Naor, S., Karavani, E., et al. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182622 · Cited by 200
Jasti, V. D. P., Zamani, A. S., Arumugam, K., Naved, M. I., Pallathadka, H., Sammy, F., Raghuvanshi, A., & Kaliyaperumal, K. (2022) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1155/2022/1918379 · Cited by 207
Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions
Lotter, W., Hassett, M. J., Schultz, N., Kehl, K. L., Van Allen, E. M., & Cerami, E. (2024) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-1199 · Cited by 196
Kuwahara, T., Hara, K., Mizuno, N., Okuno, N., Matsumoto, S., Obata, M., Kurita, Y., Koda, H., Toriyama, K., Onishi, S., et al. (2019) · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000045 · Cited by 194
Breast Tumor Classification Using an Ensemble Machine Learning Method
Assiri, A., Nazir, S., & Velastín, S. A. (2020) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging6060039 · Cited by 181
Xu, H., & Shuttleworth, K. M. J. (2024) · Intelligent Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.imed.2023.08.001 · Cited by 196
Woerl, A.-C., Eckstein, M., Geiger, J., Wagner, D., Daher, T., Stenzel, P., Fernandez, A., Hartmann, A., Wand, M., Roth, W., et al. (2020) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.023 · Cited by 177
The use of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in oncologic histopathology
Sultan, A. S., Elgharib, M. A., Tavares, T., Jessri, M., & Basile, J. R. (2020) · Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine · doi:10.1111/jop.13042 · Cited by 180
Laleh, N. G., Muti, H. S., Loeffler, C. M. L., Echle, A., Saldanha, O. L., Mahmood, F., Lu, M. Y., Trautwein, C., Langer, R., Dislich, B., et al. (2022) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102474 · Cited by 193
Self-Path: Self-Supervision for Classification of Pathology Images With Limited Annotations
Koohbanani, N. A., Unnikrishnan, B., Khurram, S. A., Krishnaswamy, P., & Rajpoot, N. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2021.3056023 · Cited by 188
Artificial intelligence in medical education - perception among medical students
Jackson, P., Ponath Sukumaran, G., Babu, C., Tony, M. C., Jack, D. S., Reshma, V. R., Davis, D., Kurian, N., & John, A. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05760-0 · Cited by 185
Predicting Ion Mobility Collision Cross-Sections Using a Deep Neural Network: DeepCCS
Plante, P.-L., Francovic‐Fontaine, É., May, J. C., MCLEAN, J. A. J., Baker, E. S., Laviolette, F., Marchand, M., & Corbeil, J. (2019) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.8b05821 · Cited by 179
Ker, J., SINGH, S. P., Bai, Y., Rao, J. P., Lim, C. C. T., & Wang, L. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19092167 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Ehteshami Bejnordi, B., Veta, M., Johannes van Diest, P., van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., Litjens, G., van der Laak, J. A. W. M., and the CAMELYON16 Consortium, Hermsen, M., Manson, Q. F., Balkenhol, M., Geessink, O., Stathonikos, N., van Dijk, M. C., Bult, P., Beca, F., Beck, A. H., Wang, D., Khosla, A., Gargeya, R., Irshad, H., Zhong, A., Dou, Q., Li, Q., Chen, H., Lin, H.-J., Heng, P.-A., Haß, C., Bruni, E., Wong, Q., Halici, U., Öner, M. Ü., Cetin-Atalay, R., Berseth, M., Khvatkov, V., Vylegzhanin, A., Kraus, O., Shaban, M., Rajpoot, N., Awan, R., Sirinukunwattana, K., Qaiser, T., Tsang, Y.-W., Tellez, D., Annuscheit, J., Hufnagl, P., Valkonen, M., Kartasalo, K., Latonen, L., Ruusuvuori, P., Liimatainen, K., Albarqouni, S., Mungal, B., George, A., Demirci, S., Navab, N., Watanabe, S., Seno, S., Takenaka, Y., Matsuda, H., Ahmady Phoulady, H., Kovalev, V., Kalinovsky, A., Liauchuk, V., Bueno, G., Fernandez-Carrobles, M. M., Serrano, I., Deniz, O., Racoceanu, D., & Venâncio, R.
- Affiliations
- Diagnostic Image Analysis Group, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
- BeckLab, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- PathAI (United States) (US)
- Harker School, San Jose, California
- Harvard University (US)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- ExB Research and Development GmbH, Munich, Germany
- Munich Business School (DE)
- Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
- Middle East Technical University (TR)
- Cancer System Biology Laboratory, Graduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
- NLP LOGIX, Jacksonville, Florida
- Smart Imaging Technologies, Houston, Texas
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University Hospital Coventry (GB)
- Qatar University (QA)
- HTW Berlin - University of Applied Sciences (DE)
- Tampere University of Technology (FI)
- Tampere University (FI)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- The University of Osaka (JP)
- University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
- National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (BY)
- University of Castilla-La Mancha (ES)
- Visilab, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain
- Inserm (FR)
- Sorbonne Université (FR)
- ORCID
- Veta, Mitko
- Karssemeijer, Nico
- Litjens, Geert
- Hermsen, Meyke
- Manson, Quirine F
- Balkenhol, Maschenka
- Geessink, Oscar
- Bult, Peter
- Beck, Andrew H
- Irshad, Humayun
- Zhong, Aoxiao
- Dou, Qi
- Li, Quanzheng
- Chen, Hao
- Heng, Pheng-Ann
- Öner, Mustafa Ümit
- Kraus, Oren
- Shaban, Muhammad
- Rajpoot, Nasir
- Awan, Ruqayya
- Sirinukunwattana, Korsuk
- Qaiser, Talha
- Tsang, Yee-Wah
- Tellez, David
- Annuscheit, Jonas
- Hufnagl, Peter
- Kartasalo, Kimmo
- Latonen, Leena
- Ruusuvuori, Pekka
- Liimatainen, Kaisa
- Albarqouni, Shadi
- Navab, Nassir
- Seno, Shigeto
- Matsuda, Hideo
- Kovalev, Vassili
- Liauchuk, Vitali
- Bueno, Gloria
- Serrano, Ismael
- Racoceanu, Daniel
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-12-12
- Volume
- 318
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2199
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC5820737
- OpenAlex
- W2772723798
- Semantic Scholar
- ba913e2c03ece1c75f0af4d16dd11c7ffbc6e3ba
- Cited by
- 3,293
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 301 · 2025: 388 · 2024: 430 · 2023: 414 · 2022: 429 · 2021: 457 · 2020: 421 · 2019: 321 · 2018: 119 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 141.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission (601040)
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15K00403)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- lymph node metastasis, breast cancer, whole slide images, deep learning, computer-aided diagnosis, H&E staining, diagnostic accuracy, immunohistochemistry validation, breast cancer staging, lymph node staging, false positives, diagnostic confidence
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Pathologists, Algorithms, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Pathology, Clinical, ROC Curve
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
