Cited by 649AI in cancer detectionDigital Imaging for Blood DiseasesCell Image Analysis Techniques

Quantifying the effects of data augmentation and stain color normalization in convolutional neural networks for computational pathology

Open access
Tellez, David, Litjens, Geert, Bándi, Péter, Bulten, Wouter, Bokhorst, John-Melle, Ciompi, Francesco, van der Laak, Jeroen·2019·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

Stain variation is a phenomenon observed when distinct pathology laboratories stain tissue slides that exhibit similar but not identical color appearance. Due to this color shift between laboratories, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained with images from one lab often underperform on unseen images from the other lab. Several techniques have been proposed to reduce the generalization error, mainly grouped into two categories: stain color augmentation and stain color normalization. The former simulates a wide variety of realistic stain variations during training, producing stain-invariant CNNs. The latter aims to match training and test color distributions in order to reduce stain variation. For the first time, we compared some of these techniques and quantified their effect on CNN classification performance using a heterogeneous dataset of hematoxylin and eosin histopathology images from 4 organs and 9 pathology laboratories. Additionally, we propose a novel unsupervised method to perform stain color normalization using a neural network. Based on our experimental results, we provide practical guidelines on how to use stain color augmentation and stain color normalization in future computational pathology applications.

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.media.2019.101544

Cites

38 of 38 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

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?

  • Techniques such as rotation, scaling, color normalization, or stain augmentation help simulate variability encountered in real-world slides.

    “Techniques such as rotation, scaling, color normalization, or stain augmentation help simulate variability encountered in real-world slides [57].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [57]

    Section 1.1 says data augmentation simulates realistic variations and lists rotation and scaling; it also says color augmentation simulates stain variation. Section 3.2 distinguishes color normalization: it reduces variation by matching training and test color distributions rather than simulating variability. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In histopathology, variation between hospitals can arise from differences in the patient population or in slide staining and image acquisition.

    “In histopathology applications-studying tissue slides under a microscope-this variation can arise from sources like differences in the patient population or in slide staining and image acquisition (Veta et al., 2016; Komura and Ishikawa, 2018; Tellez et al., 2019).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Tellez et al., 2019

    The Introduction describes stain-color differences between laboratories, and §2.3 describes slides with different staining and scanning conditions. Our copy does not identify differences in patient populations as a source of between-hospital variation, so that part of the cited claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Regulatory frameworks for AI in oncology remain evolving, with significant gaps in liability assignment when AI-assisted decisions lead to adverse outcomes.

    “Beyond technical challenges, regulatory frameworks for AI in oncology remain evolving, with significant gaps in liability assignment when AI-assisted decisions lead to adverse outcomes [124].”
  • Prior work suggests that staining differences are the main source of variation between hospitals in similar datasets.

    “Prior work suggests that staining differences are the main source of variation between hospitals in similar datasets (Tellez et al., 2019).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Tellez et al., 2019

  • Specialized stain augmentation methods can close the in- and out-of-distribution accuracy gap on a variant of the dataset based on the same underlying slides.

    “specialized stain augmentation methods can close the in- and out-of-distribution accuracy gap on a variant of the dataset based on the same underlying slides (Tellez et al., 2019)”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Tellez et al., 2019

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

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Maas, A.L. , Hannun, A.Y. , Ng, A.Y. , 2013. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural net- work acoustic models. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ma- chine Learning .
  2. Reinhard, E. , Adhikhmin, M. , Gooch, B. , Shirley, P. , 2001. Color transfer between im- ages. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21 (5), 34-41 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tellez, D., Litjens, G., Bándi, P., Bulten, W., Bokhorst, J.-M., Ciompi, F., & van der Laak, J.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Tellez, David
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
58
Pages
101544
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969278648
Cited by
649
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 142 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 14
FWCI
25.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • KWF Kankerbestrijding
  • Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum
  • Horizon 2020
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
computational pathology, convolutional neural networks, histopathological image classification
MeSH terms
Unsupervised Machine Learning, Color, Eosine Yellowish-(YS), Hematoxylin, Humans, Pathology, Clinical, Staining and Labeling, Neural Networks, Computer, Datasets as Topic

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