The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: The TUPAC16 challenge
Open accessAbstract
&NA; Tumor proliferation is an important biomarker indicative of the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Assessment of tumor proliferation in a clinical setting is a highly subjective and labor‐intensive task. Previous efforts to automate tumor proliferation assessment by image analysis only focused on mitosis detection in predefined tumor regions. However, in a real‐world scenario, automatic mitosis detection should be performed in whole‐slide images (WSIs) and an automatic method should be able to produce a tumor proliferation score given a WSI as input. To address this, we organized the TUmor Proliferation Assessment Challenge 2016 (TUPAC16) on prediction of tumor proliferation scores from WSIs. The challenge dataset consisted of 500 training and 321 testing breast cancer histopathology WSIs. In order to ensure fair and independent evaluation, only the ground truth for the training dataset was provided to the challenge participants. The first task of the challenge was to predict mitotic scores, i.e., to reproduce the manual method of assessing tumor proliferation by a pathologist. The second task was to predict the gene expression based PAM50 proliferation scores from the WSI. The best performing automatic method for the first task achieved a quadratic‐weighted Cohen's kappa score of &kgr; = 0.567, 95% CI [0.464, 0.671] between the predicted scores and the ground truth. For the second task, the predictions of the top method had a Spearman's correlation coefficient of r = 0.617, 95% CI [0.581 0.651] with the ground truth. This was the first comparison study that investigated tumor proliferation assessment from WSIs. The achieved results are promising given the difficulty of the tasks and weakly‐labeled nature of the ground truth. However, further research is needed to improve the practical utility of image analysis methods for this task.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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
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
Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours
The Cancer Genome Atlas Network (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11412 · Cited by 12,129
Zagoruyko, S., & Komodakis, N. (2016) · Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2016 · doi:10.5244/c.30.87 · Cited by 7,244
A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis
Macenko, M., Niethammer, M., Marron, J. S., Borland, D., Woosley, J. T., Guan, X., Schmitt, C., & Thomas, N. E. (2009) · 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro · doi:10.1109/isbi.2009.5193250 · Cited by 1,482
Going Deeper with Convolutions
Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., & Rabinovich, A. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.4842 · Cited by 1,461
AggNet: Deep Learning From Crowds for Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histology Images
Albarqouni, S., Baur, C., Achilles, F., Belagiannis, V., Demirci, S., & Navab, N. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2528120 · Cited by 606
Tellez, D., Balkenhol, M., Otte-Höller, I., van de Loo, R., Vogels, R., Bult, P., Wauters, C., Vreuls, W., Mol, S., Karssemeijer, N., et al. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2018.2820199 · Cited by 288
Self-citationVeta, M., van Diest, P. J., Jiwa, M., Al-Janabi, S., & Pluim, J. P. W. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161286 · Cited by 127
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Al-Janabi, 2013, Evaluation of mitotic activity index in breast cancer using whole slide digital images, PloS One, 8, e82576, 10.1371/journal.pone.0082576 · DOI
- Cheang, 2009, Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 101, 736, 10.1093/jnci/djp082 · DOI · Paper page
- Ehteshami Bejnordi, 2015, Stain specific standardization of whole-slide histopathological images, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 35, 404, 10.1109/TMI.2015.2476509 · DOI · Paper page
- Fitzgibbons, 2000, Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999, Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., 124, 966, 10.5858/2000-124-0966-PFIBC · DOI · Paper page
- Gutman, 2013, Cancer Digital Slide Archive: an informatics resource to support integrated in silico analysis of TCGA pathology data, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., 20, 1091, 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001469 · DOI · Paper page
- Heng, 2017, The molecular basis of breast cancer pathological phenotypes, J. Pathol., 241, 375, 10.1002/path.4847 · DOI
- Kamentsky, 2011, Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software, Bioinforma. Oxf. Engl., 27, 1179, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr095 · DOI · Paper page
- Kovalev, 2001, Three-dimensional texture analysis of MRI brain datasets, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 20, 424, 10.1109/42.925295 · DOI
- Lee, 2014, Current breast cancer proliferative markers correlate variably based on decoupled duration of cell cycle phases, Sci. Rep., 4, 5122, 10.1038/srep05122 · DOI
- Lester, 2009, Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast, Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., 133, 1515, 10.5858/133.10.1515 · DOI · Paper page
- Li, 2018, DeepMitosis: mitosis detection via deep detection, verification and segmentation networks, Med. Image Anal., 45, 121, 10.1016/j.media.2017.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Nielsen, 2010, A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, Clin. Cancer Res., 16, 5222, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1282 · DOI · Paper page
- Otsu, 1979, A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 9, 62, 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 · DOI · Paper page
- Penault-Llorca, 2017, Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update, Pathology, 49, 166, 10.1016/j.pathol.2016.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
- Robbins, 1995, Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement, Hum. Pathol., 26, 873, 10.1016/0046-8177(95)90010-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Roux, 2013, Mitosis detection in breast cancer histological images An ICPR 2012 contest, J. Pathol. Inform., 4, 8, 10.4103/2153-3539.112693 · DOI · Paper page
- van Diest, 2004, Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review, J. Clin. Pathol., 57, 675, 10.1136/jcp.2003.010777 · DOI · Paper page
- Veta, 2015, Assessment of algorithms for mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images, Med. Image Anal., 20, 237, 10.1016/j.media.2014.11.010 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Deep learning in histopathology: the path to the clinic
van der Laak, J., Litjens, G., & Ciompi, F. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01343-4 · Cited by 902
Self-citationDeep neural network models for computational histopathology: A survey
Srinidhi, C. L., Ciga, O., & Martel, A. L. (2021) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101813 · Cited by 749
Tellez, D., Litjens, G., Bándi, P., Bulten, W., Bokhorst, J.-M., Ciompi, F., & van der Laak, J. (2019) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2019.101544 · Cited by 649
Self-citationEmerging role of deep learning‐based artificial intelligence in tumor pathology
Jiang, Y., Yang, M., Wang, S., Li, X., & Sun, Y. (2020) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12012 · Cited by 438
Artificial intelligence for digital and computational pathology
Song, A. H., Jaume, G., Williamson, D. F. K., Lu, M. Y., Vaidya, A., Miller, T. R., & Mahmood, F. (2023) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-023-00096-8 · Cited by 356
Metadata
- Authors
- Veta, M., Heng, Y. J., Stathonikos, N., Bejnordi, B. E., Beca, F., Wollmann, T., Rohr, K., Shah, M. A., Wang, D., Rousson, M., Hedlund, M., Tellez, D., Ciompi, F., Zerhouni, E., Lanyi, D., Viana, M., Kovalev, V., Liauchuk, V., Phoulady, H. A., Qaiser, T., Graham, S., Rajpoot, N., Sjöblom, E., Molin, J., Paeng, K., Hwang, S., Park, S., Jia, Z., Chang, E. I.-C., Xu, Y., Beck, A. H., van Diest, P. J., & Pluim, J. P. W.
- Venue
- Medical Image Analysis
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 54
- Pages
- 111-121
- ISSN
- 1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2884988214
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 19.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2019-08-01)
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: The TUPAC16 challenge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.media.2019.02.012
- The paper
- Veta, M., Heng, Y. J., Stathonikos, N., Bejnordi, B. E., Beca, F., Wollmann, T., Rohr, K., Shah, M. A., Wang, D., Rousson, M., Hedlund, M., Tellez, D., Ciompi, F., Zerhouni, E., Lanyi, D., Viana, M., Kovalev, V., Liauchuk, V., Phoulady, H. A., . . . Pluim, J. P. W. (2019). Predicting breast tumor proliferation from whole-slide images: The TUPAC16 challenge. Medical Image Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2019.02.012
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
