Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Convolutional neural networks can accurately distinguish four histologic growth patterns of lung adenocarcinoma in digital slides

Open access
Gertych, Arkadiusz, Swiderska-Chadaj, Zaneta, Ma, Zhaoxuan, Ing, Nathan, Markiewicz, Tomasz, Cierniak, Szczepan, Salemi, Hootan, Guzman, Samuel, Walts, Ann E., Knudsen, Beatrice S.·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

During the diagnostic workup of lung adenocarcinomas (LAC), pathologists evaluate distinct histological tumor growth patterns. The percentage of each pattern on multiple slides bears prognostic significance. To assist with the quantification of growth patterns, we constructed a pipeline equipped with a convolutional neural network (CNN) and soft-voting as the decision function to recognize solid, micropapillary, acinar, and cribriform growth patterns, and non-tumor areas. Slides of primary LAC were obtained from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (CSMC), the Military Institute of Medicine in Warsaw and the TCGA portal. Several CNN models trained with 19,924 image tiles extracted from 78 slides (MIMW and CSMC) were evaluated on 128 test slides from the three sites by F1-score and accuracy using manual tumor annotations by pathologist. The best CNN yielded F1-scores of 0.91 (solid), 0.76 (micropapillary), 0.74 (acinar), 0.6 (cribriform), and 0.96 (non-tumor) respectively. The overall accuracy of distinguishing the five tissue classes was 89.24%. Slide-based accuracy in the CSMC set (88.5%) was significantly better (p < 2.3E-4) than the accuracy in the MIMW (84.2%) and TCGA (84%) sets due to superior slide quality. Our model can work side-by-side with a pathologist to accurately quantify the percentages of growth patterns in tumors with mixed LAC 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-018-37638-9

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Gertych, A., Swiderska-Chadaj, Z., Ma, Z., Ing, N., Markiewicz, T., Cierniak, S., Salemi, H., Guzman, S., Walts, A. E., & Knudsen, B. S.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
1483-1483
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2922268597
Cited by
188
References
9
FWCI
12.43
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: Convolutional neural networks can accurately distinguish four histologic growth patterns of lung adenocarcinoma in digital slides. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-37638-9
The paper
Gertych, A., Swiderska-Chadaj, Z., Ma, Z., Ing, N., Markiewicz, T., Cierniak, S., Salemi, H., Guzman, S., Walts, A. E., & Knudsen, B. S. (2019). Convolutional neural networks can accurately distinguish four histologic growth patterns of lung adenocarcinoma in digital slides. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37638-9

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.