The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays via deep learning
Open accessAbstract
The Gleason grading system remains the most powerful prognostic predictor for patients with prostate cancer since the 1960s. Its application requires highly-trained pathologists, is tedious and yet suffers from limited inter-pathologist reproducibility, especially for the intermediate Gleason score 7. Automated annotation procedures constitute a viable solution to remedy these limitations. In this study, we present a deep learning approach for automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining. Our system was trained using detailed Gleason annotations on a discovery cohort of 641 patients and was then evaluated on an independent test cohort of 245 patients annotated by two pathologists. On the test cohort, the inter-annotator agreements between the model and each pathologist, quantified via Cohen’s quadratic kappa statistic, were 0.75 and 0.71 respectively, comparable with the inter-pathologist agreement (kappa = 0.71). Furthermore, the model’s Gleason score assignments achieved pathology expert-level stratification of patients into prognostically distinct groups, on the basis of disease-specific survival data available for the test cohort. Overall, our study shows promising results regarding the applicability of deep learning-based solutions towards more objective and reproducible prostate cancer grading, especially for cases with heterogeneous Gleason patterns.
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Densely Connected Convolutional Networks
Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.243 · Cited by 48,566
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature21056 · Cited by 14,362
The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Weinstein, J. N., Collisson, E. A., Mills, G. B., Shaw, K. R. M., Ozenberger, B. A., Ellrott, K., Shmulevich, I., Sander, C., & Stuart, J. M. (2013) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2764 · Cited by 9,092
Deep learning for computational biology
Angermueller, C., Pärnamaa, T., Parts, L., & Stegle, O. (2016) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.20156651 · Cited by 1,473
Deep learning as a tool for increased accuracy and efficiency of histopathological diagnosis
Litjens, G., Sánchez, C. I., Timofeeva, N., Hermsen, M., Nagtegaal, I., Kovacs, I., Hulsbergen - van de Kaa, C., Bult, P., van Ginneken, B., & van der Laak, J. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep26286 · Cited by 1,069
Cited by
Deep 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
Bulten, W., Pinckaers, H., van Boven, H., Vink, R., de Bel, T., van Ginneken, B., van der Laak, J., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C., & Litjens, G. (2020) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30739-9 · Cited by 705
Ström, P., Kartasalo, K., Olsson, H., Solorzano, L., Delahunt, B., Berney, D. M., Bostwick, D. G., Evans, A. J., Grignon, D. J., Humphrey, P. A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30738-7 · Cited by 620
Nagpal, K., Foote, D., Liu, Y., Chen, P.-H. C., Wulczyn, E., Tan, F., Olson, N., Smith, J. L., Mohtashamian, A., Wren, J. H., et al. (2019) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0112-2 · Cited by 495
Abels, E., Pantanowitz, L., Aeffner, F., Zarella, M. D., van der Laak, J., Bui, M. M., Vemuri, V. N., Parwani, A. V., Gibbs, J., Agosto‐Arroyo, E., et al. (2019) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.5331 · Cited by 459
Metadata
- Authors
- Arvaniti, E., Fricker, K. S., Moret, M., Rupp, N., Hermanns, T., Fankhauser, C., Wey, N., Wild, P. J., Rüschoff, J. H., & Claassen, M.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2018-08-13
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12054-12054
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2949226441
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 25.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays via deep learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-30535-1
- The paper
- Arvaniti, E., Fricker, K. S., Moret, M., Rupp, N., Hermanns, T., Fankhauser, C., Wey, N., Wild, P. J., Rüschoff, J. H., & Claassen, M. (2018). Automated Gleason grading of prostate cancer tissue microarrays via deep learning. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30535-1
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.
