Cited by 522AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Whole slide images based cancer survival prediction using attention guided deep multiple instance learning networks

Open access
Yao, Jiawen, Zhu, Xinliang, Jonnagaddala, Jitendra, Hawkins, Nicholas, Huang, Junzhou·2020·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

Traditional image-based survival prediction models rely on discriminative patch labeling which make those methods not scalable to extend to large datasets. Recent studies have shown Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) framework is useful for histopathological images when no annotations are available in classification task. Different to the current image-based survival models that limit to key patches or clusters derived from Whole Slide Images (WSIs), we propose Deep Attention Multiple Instance Survival Learning (DeepAttnMISL) by introducing both siamese MI-FCN and attention-based MIL pooling to efficiently learn imaging features from the WSI and then aggregate WSI-level information to patient-level. Attention-based aggregation is more flexible and adaptive than aggregation techniques in recent survival models. We evaluated our methods on two large cancer whole slide images datasets and our results suggest that the proposed approach is more effective and suitable for large datasets and has better interpretability in locating important patterns and features that contribute to accurate cancer survival predictions. The proposed framework can also be used to assess individual patient's risk and thus assisting in delivering personalized medicine.

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.2020.101789

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • The FSM model that leveraged WSI and genomic data shows a marked improvement in performance across both metrics (c-index & tAUC) and datasets (TCGA & CPTAC), outperforming other methods such as Attention MIL [21], Patch-GCN [25], DeepAttnMISL [27], PathomicFusion [28], PORPOISE [5] and MOTCAT [29].

    “The FSM model that leveraged WSI and genomic data shows a marked improvement in performance across both metrics (c-index & tAUC) and datasets (TCGA & CPTAC), outperforming other methods such as Attention MIL [21], Patch-GCN [25], DeepAttnMISL [27], PathomicFusion [28], PORPOISE [5] and MOTCAT [29].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [25][25] Yirui Wang, Le Lu, Chi-Tung Cheng, Dakai Jin, Adam P Harrison, Jing Xiao, Chien-Hung Liao, and Shun Miao. Weakly supervised universal fracture detection in pelvic x-rays. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 459-467. Springer, 2019. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yao, J., Zhu, X., Jonnagaddala, J., Hawkins, N., & Huang, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Huang, Junzhou
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
65
Pages
101789
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3043535018
Cited by
522
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 4
FWCI
20.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
whole slide images, cancer survival prediction, multiple instance learning, histopathological images, interpretability, personalized medicine, risk assessment
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms

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