Cited by 2,799AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images

Open access
Campanella, Gabriele, Hanna, Matthew G., Geneslaw, Luke, Miraflor, Allen, Werneck Krauss Silva, Vitor, Busam, Klaus J., Brogi, Edi, Reuter, Victor E. +2 more·2019·Nature Medicine

Abstract

The development of decision support systems for pathology and their deployment in clinical practice have been hindered by the need for large manually annotated datasets. To overcome this problem, we present a multiple instance learning-based deep learning system that uses only the reported diagnoses as labels for training, thereby avoiding expensive and time-consuming pixel-wise manual annotations. We evaluated this framework at scale on a dataset of 44,732 whole slide images from 15,187 patients without any form of data curation. Tests on prostate cancer, basal cell carcinoma and breast cancer metastases to axillary lymph nodes resulted in areas under the curve above 0.98 for all cancer types. Its clinical application would allow pathologists to exclude 65-75% of slides while retaining 100% sensitivity. Our results show that this system has the ability to train accurate classification models at unprecedented scale, laying the foundation for the deployment of computational decision support systems in clinical practice.

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/s41591-019-0508-1

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Prognostic and risk stratification systems estimate outcomes such as mortality, deterioration, readmission, or complications, supporting early intervention and clinical prioritisation.

    “Prognostic and risk stratification systems estimate outcomes such as mortality, deterioration, readmission, or complications, supporting early intervention and clinical prioritisation [15,33].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes sorting pathology cases by predicted tumor probability and flagging positive slides for rapid review, which supports clinical prioritisation. It does not describe prognostic or risk-stratification systems estimating mortality, deterioration, readmission, or complications, or show that such estimates support early intervention. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Large-scale experiments have shown that at least 10,000 whole-slide images are necessary for clinical-grade classification performance.

    “Large-scale experiments have shown that, although dependent on the tissue type and specific task, at least 10,000 WSIs are necessary for clinical-grade classification performance (Campanella et al, 2019), which is very difficult to achieve for rare diseases, such as MF.”

    From Deep Learning–Based Classification of Early-Stage Mycosis Fungoides and Benign Inflammatory Dermatoses on H&E-Stained Whole-Slide Images: A Retrospective, Proof-of-Concept Study (2025) · cites this paper as Campanella et al, 2019

    The Results section, “Dataset size dependence of classification accuracy” (page unavailable), says that, in general, at least 10,000 slides are necessary for good performance, while noting that the number varies by tissue type. The Discussion defines clinical-grade performance separately; the dataset-size result does not establish 10,000 slides as a requirement for clinical-grade performance. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The performance of deep learning-based models significantly improves with increasing numbers of patients included in the training dataset.

    “However, most importantly, the performance of DL-based models significantly improves with increasing numbers of patients included in the training dataset.”

    From Deep Learning–Based Classification of Early-Stage Mycosis Fungoides and Benign Inflammatory Dermatoses on H&E-Stained Whole-Slide Images: A Retrospective, Proof-of-Concept Study (2025) · cites this paper as Campanella et al, 2019

    The Results section, “Dataset size dependence of classification accuracy” (page unavailable), reports lower validation error with larger prostate training sets and expects further improvement from larger datasets. But it varies the number of slides, not the number of patients, and does not report a statistical significance test for the improvement. The claim extends that finding to deep-learning models generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI and machine learning techniques are indispensable for handling the high-dimensional data generated by digital pathology, multi-omics analyses, and clinical information.

    “AI and machine learning techniques are indispensable for handling the high-dimensional data generated by digital pathology, multi-omics analyses, and clinical information [23].”

    From A perspective on integrating digital pathology, proteomics, clinical data and AI analytics in cancer research (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The paper’s introductory passages (indexed under Abstract; page unavailable) describe whole-slide pathology images as several gigapixels in size, and its abstract reports a deep-learning system trained on 44,732 such images. That supports the digital-pathology part of the claim. The paper does not establish that AI is indispensable, or address handling multi-omics data and clinical information as the sentence claims. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Digital pathology systems analyse whole-slide images to detect tumours and grade malignancies with reported high sensitivity in selected study settings.

    “Digital pathology systems analyse whole-slide images to detect tumours and grade malignancies with reported high sensitivity in selected study settings [33,16].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision-Making: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Applications, Validation Gaps, Bias, and Deployment Challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Abstract (page not provided) reports a whole-slide-image system tested for detecting prostate cancer, basal cell carcinoma and breast cancer metastases; it reports 100% sensitivity when slides are excluded from review at specified thresholds. The cited results concern cancer detection and classification, not grading malignancies. The Abstract mentions grading as part of traditional pathology practice, but does not report that this system performs it. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]LeBoit PE Pathology and Genetics of Skin Tumours (IARC Press, 2006).
  2. [42]Wickham H ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campanella, G., Hanna, M. G., Geneslaw, L., Miraflor, A., Werneck Krauss Silva, V., Busam, K. J., Brogi, E., Reuter, V. E., Klimstra, D. S., & Fuchs, T. J.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Fuchs, Thomas J.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-07-15
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1301-1309
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2956228567
Cited by
2,799
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 585 · 2025: 457 · 2024: 435 · 2023: 400 · 2022: 366 · 2021: 304 · 2020: 216 · 2019: 29
FWCI
104.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
computational pathology, weakly supervised learning, multiple instance learning, whole slide images, cancer diagnosis, prostate cancer, basal cell carcinoma, breast cancer metastasis, axillary lymph nodes, decision support system, annotation-free training, clinical implementation
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Basal Cell, Basal Cell Carcinoma, Female, Humans, Male, Prostatic Neoplasms, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Neoplasm Grading

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