Pathology image analysis using segmentation deep learning algorithms
Open accessAbstract
With the rapid development of image scanning techniques and visualization software, whole slide imaging (WSI) is becoming a routine diagnostic method. Accelerating clinical diagnosis from pathology images and automating image analysis efficiently and accurately remain significant challenges. Recently, deep learning algorithms have shown great promise in pathology image analysis, such as in tumor region identification, metastasis detection, and patient prognosis. Many machine learning algorithms, including convolutional neural networks, have been proposed to automatically segment pathology images. Among these algorithms, segmentation deep learning algorithms such as fully convolutional networks stand out for their accuracy, computational efficiency, and generalizability. Thus, deep learning-based pathology image segmentation has become an important tool in WSI analysis. In this review, the pathology image segmentation process using deep learning algorithms is described in detail. The goals are to provide quick guidance for implementing deep learning into pathology image analysis and to provide some potential ways of further improving segmentation performance. Although there have been previous reviews on using machine learning methods in digital pathology image analysis, this is the first in-depth review of the applications of deep learning algorithms for segmentation in WSI analysis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 AI-modelled Global Histology Activity Score (GHAS) in CD and Geboes subgrades matched central reading with moderate to substantial agreement, achieving accuracies between 80% to 89% for GHAS in the colon, 65% to 82% for GHAS in the ileum, and 65% to 85% for Geboes scale.
“The AI-modelled Global Histology Activity Score (GHAS) in CD and Geboes subgrades matched central reading with moderate to substantial agreement, achieving accuracies between 80% to 89% for GHAS in the colon, 65% to 82% for GHAS in the ileum, and 65% to 85% for Geboes scale.”
From Artificial intelligence and endo-histo-omics: new dimensions of precision endoscopy and histology in inflammatory bowel disease (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
Rymarczyk et al. introduced novel deep learning models for automating histological assessment of CD and UC histological images from phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials.
“Recently, Rymarczyk et al . introduced novel DL models for automating histological assessment of CD and UC histological images from phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials.66”
From Artificial intelligence and endo-histo-omics: new dimensions of precision endoscopy and histology in inflammatory bowel disease (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 83 · Cited by 382
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- He KM, Gkioxari G, Dollar P, Girshick R: Mask R-CNN. Edited by Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2017. pp. 2980e2988
- Huang G, Liu Z, van der Maaten L, Weinberger KQ: Densely con- nected convolutional networks. Edited by Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2017). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2017. pp. 2261e2269
- Girshick R: Fast R-CNN. Edited by Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2015. pp. 1440e1448
- Authors
- Wang, S., Yang, D. M., Rong, R., Zhan, X., & Xiao, G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
- Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhan, Xiaowei
- Xiao, Guanghua
- Venue
- The American Journal of Pathology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 189
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1686-1698
- ISSN
- 0002-9440 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6723214
- OpenAlex
- W2952846726
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 2.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal Of Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1R01CA172211, 1R01GM115473, 5P30CA142543, 5R01CA152301)
- Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP120732)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- whole slide imaging, digital pathology, deep learning, fully convolutional network, metastasis detection, convolutional neural networks, automated image analysis
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Pathology, Clinical
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.
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