Cited by 29AI in cancer detectionAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsCell Image Analysis Techniques

A Fully Automated System Using A Convolutional Neural Network to Predict Renal Allograft Rejection: Extra-validation with Giga-pixel Immunostained Slides

Open access
Kim, Young-Gon, Choi, Gyuheon, Go, Heounjeong, Cho, Yongwon, Lee, Hyunna, Lee, A-Reum, Park, Beomhee, Kim, Namkug·2019·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Pathologic diagnoses mainly depend on visual scoring by pathologists, a process that can be time-consuming, laborious, and susceptible to inter- and/or intra-observer variations. This study proposes a novel method to enhance pathologic scoring of renal allograft rejection. A fully automated system using a convolutional neural network (CNN) was developed to identify regions of interest (ROIs) and to detect C4d positive and negative peritubular capillaries (PTCs) in giga-pixel immunostained slides. The performance of faster R-CNN was evaluated using optimal parameters of the novel method to enlarge the size of labeled masks. Fifty and forty pixels of the enlarged size images showed the best performance in detecting C4d positive and negative PTCs, respectively. Additionally, the feasibility of deep-learning-assisted labeling as independent dataset to enhance detection in this model was evaluated. Based on these two CNN methods, a fully automated system for renal allograft rejection was developed. This system was highly reliable, efficient, and effective, making it applicable to real clinical workflow.

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/s41598-019-41479-5

Cites

27 of 27 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 diabetic retinopathy diagnosis, CNN-based models have achieved performance on par with or even surpassing expert ophthalmologists.

    “In DR diagnosis, CNN-based models have achieved performance on par with or even surpassing expert ophthalmologists [166, 167], overcoming the constraints of manual feature engineering.”

    From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [166]

    The Introduction reports that a CNN trained on 130,000 fundus images performed comparably to expert ophthalmologists in diagnosing diabetic retinopathy. It does not report performance surpassing ophthalmologists. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y.-G., Choi, G., Go, H., Cho, Y., Lee, H., Lee, A.-R., Park, B., & Kim, N.
Affiliations
  • Seoul National University (KR)
  • Asan Medical Center (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Go, Heounjeong
  • Kim, Namkug
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2019-03-26
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
5123-5123
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2923883988
Cited by
29
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center (2017-7028)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
renal allograft rejection, C4d staining, peritubular capillaries, automated detection, convolutional neural networks, Faster R-CNN, region of interest detection, deep learning, kidney transplantation
MeSH terms
Female, Graft Rejection, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Kidney Transplantation, Neural Networks, Computer, Allografts

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