Cited by 13Cell Image Analysis TechniquesChemotherapy-related skin toxicityComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Assessment of Skin Toxicity in an in Vitro Reconstituted Human Epidermis Model Using Deep Learning

Open access
Hu, Fangyao, Santagostino, Sara F., Danilenko, Dimitry M., Tseng, Min, Brumm, Jochen, Zehnder, Philip, Wu, Kai Connie·2022·The American Journal of Pathology

Abstract

Skin toxicity is a common safety concern associated with drugs that inhibit epidermal growth factor receptors as well as other targets involved in epidermal growth and differentiation. Recently, the use of a three-dimensional reconstructed human epidermis model enabled large-scale drug screening and showed potential for predicting skin toxicity. Although a decrease in epidermal thickness was often observed when the three-dimensional reconstructed tissues were exposed to drugs causing skin toxicity, the thickness evaluation of epidermal layers from a pathologist was subjective and not easily reproducible or scalable. In addition, the subtle differences in thickness among tissues, as well as the large number of samples tested, made cross-study comparison difficult when a manual evaluation strategy was used. The current study used deep learning and image-processing algorithms to measure the viable epidermal thickness from multiple studies and found that the measured thickness was not only significantly correlated with a pathologist's semi-quantitative evaluation but was also in close agreement with the quantitative measurement performed by pathologists. Moreover, a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.75 were achieved when predicting the toxicity of 18 compounds with clinical observations with these epidermal thickness algorithms. This approach is fully automated, reproducible, and highly scalable. It not only shows reasonable accuracy in predicting skin toxicity but also enables cross-study comparison and high-throughput compound screening.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajpath.2021.12.007

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, F., Santagostino, S. F., Danilenko, D. M., Tseng, M., Brumm, J., Zehnder, P., & Wu, K. C.
Affiliations
Genentech (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hu, Fangyao
  • Wu, Kai Connie
Venue
The American Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
192
Issue
4
Pages
687-700
ISSN
0002-9440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205571820
Cited by
13
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal Of Pathology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Chemotherapy-related skin toxicity
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
skin toxicity, reconstructed human epidermis, deep learning, image analysis, EGFR inhibitors, high-throughput drug screening
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Epidermis, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Skin, Skin Diseases

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