Cited by 66Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersAI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Association of artificial intelligence-powered and manual quantification of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression with outcomes in patients treated with nivolumab ± ipilimumab

Open access
Baxi, Vipul, Lee, George, Duan, Chunzhe, Pandya, Dimple, Cohen, Daniel N., Edwards, Robin, Chang, Han, Li, Jun +10 more·2022·Modern Pathology

Abstract

Assessment of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) has emerged as an important predictive biomarker across multiple tumor types. However, manual quantitation of PD-L1 positivity can be difficult and leads to substantial inter-observer variability. Although the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms may mitigate some of the challenges associated with manual assessment and improve the accuracy of PD-L1 expression scoring, use of AI-based approaches to oncology biomarker scoring and drug development has been sparse, primarily due to the lack of large-scale clinical validation studies across multiple cohorts and tumor types. We developed AI-powered algorithms to evaluate PD-L1 expression on tumor cells by IHC and compared it with manual IHC scoring in urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (prospectively determined during the phase II and III CheckMate clinical trials). 1,746 slides were retrospectively analyzed, the largest investigation of digital pathology algorithms on clinical trial datasets performed to date. AI-powered quantification of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells identified more PD-L1-positive samples compared with manual scoring at cutoffs of ≥1% and ≥5% in most tumor types. Additionally, similar improvements in response and survival were observed in patients identified as PD-L1-positive compared with PD-L1-negative using both AI-powered and manual methods, while improved associations with survival were observed in patients with certain tumor types identified as PD-L1-positive using AI-powered scoring only. Our study demonstrates the potential for implementation of digital pathology-based methods in future clinical practice to identify more patients who would benefit from treatment with immuno-oncology therapy compared with current guidelines using manual assessment.

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 · 10.1038/s41379-022-01119-2

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • In dermatopathology, AI applications for IHC quantification include assessing proliferation markers (e.g., Ki-67) in melanocytic lesions, quantifying lineage markers (Melan-A, SOX10) for melanocytic lesion evaluation, and analyzing immune-related markers (CD3, CD8, PD-L1) in cutaneous tumors and inflammatory dermatoses.

    “In dermatopathology, applications include assessing proliferation markers (e.g., Ki-67) in melanocytic lesions [37], quantifying lineage markers (Melan-A, SOX10) [38] for melanocytic lesion evaluation, and analyzing immune-related markers (CD3, CD8, PD-L1) [39,40] in both cutaneous tumors and inflammatory dermatoses.”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    Split into 3 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Baxi, V., Lee, G., Duan, C., Pandya, D., Cohen, D. N., Edwards, R., Chang, H., Li, J., Elliott, H., Pokkalla, H., Glass, B., Agrawal, N., Lahiri, A., Wang, D., Khosla, A., Wapinski, I., Beck, A., & Montalto, M.
Affiliations
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • PathAI (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Baxi, Vipul
Venue
Modern Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
35
Issue
11
Pages
1529-1539
ISSN
0893-3952 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285589888
Cited by
66
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Modern Pathology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • 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
Keywords
PD-L1 expression, artificial intelligence, immunohistochemistry scoring, digital pathology, nivolumab, ipilimumab, immune checkpoint inhibitors, urothelial carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, predictive biomarkers, interobserver variability, treatment response, survival outcomes
MeSH terms
Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Artificial Intelligence, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Carcinoma, Transitional Cell, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Tumor, B7-H1 Antigen

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