Cited by 20AI in cancer detectionNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Intraoperative margin assessment for basal cell carcinoma with deep learning and histologic tumor mapping to surgical site

Open access
Levy, Joshua J, Davis, Matthew J, Chacko, Rachael S, Davis, Michael J, Fu, Lucy J, Goel, Tarushii, Pamal, Akash, Nafi, Irfan +7 more·2024·npj Precision Oncology

Abstract

Successful treatment of solid cancers relies on complete surgical excision of the tumor either for definitive treatment or before adjuvant therapy. Intraoperative and postoperative radial sectioning, the most common form of margin assessment, can lead to incomplete excision and increase the risk of recurrence and repeat procedures. Mohs Micrographic Surgery is associated with complete removal of basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma through real-time margin assessment of 100% of the peripheral and deep margins. Real-time assessment in many tumor types is constrained by tissue size, complexity, and specimen processing / assessment time during general anesthesia. We developed an artificial intelligence platform to reduce the tissue preprocessing and histological assessment time through automated grossing recommendations, mapping and orientation of tumor to the surgical specimen. Using basal cell carcinoma as a model system, results demonstrate that this approach can address surgical laboratory efficiency bottlenecks for rapid and complete intraoperative margin 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/s41698-023-00477-7

Cites

105 of 105 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?

  • The integrated ArcticAI approach improves the speed and completeness of intraoperative margin evaluations for BCC excision.

    “This integrated approach improves the speed and completeness of intraoperative margin evaluations for BCC excision.”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Results (‘Margin assessment speed’; page unavailable) report 78 seconds per case, and the Discussion compares this favorably with previously reported processing times. The Results (‘Histological assessment results’; page unavailable) show that ArcticAI detects holes and tears in tissue sections, but the Discussion describes improved completeness of margin review as an expected benefit of integrating that algorithm, not a demonstrated improvement. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ArcticAI, an artificial intelligence platform introduced in a 2024 study, is designed to enhance intraoperative margin assessment during Mohs micrographic surgery for BCC.

    “a 2024 study introduced an artificial intelligence platform, ArcticAI, which is designed to enhance intraoperative margin assessment during Mohs micrographic surgery for BCC [24].”
  • ArcticAI automates tissue grossing recommendations, accurately identifies tumor presence on whole slide images, and maps these findings back to the surgical site.

    “It automates tissue grossing recommendations, accurately identifies tumor presence on whole slide images, and maps these findings back to the surgical site.”

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. [62]Liutkus, A., Simsekli, U., Majewski, S., Durmus, A. & Stöter, F-R Sliced-Wasserstein flows: Nonparametric generative modeling via optimal transport and diffusions. in International Conference on Machine Learning 4104–4113 (PMLR, 2019).
  2. [95]Akkiraju, N. et al. Alpha shapes: definition and software. in Proceedings of the 1st international computational geometry software workshop vol. 63 (1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, J. J., Davis, M. J., Chacko, R. S., Davis, M. J., Fu, L. J., Goel, T., Pamal, A., Nafi, I., Angirekula, A., Suvarna, A., Vempati, R., Christensen, B. C., Hayden, M. S., Vaickus, L. J., & LeBoeuf, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Levy, Joshua J
Venue
npj Precision Oncology
Published
2024-01-03
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
2-2
ISSN
2397-768X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390542364
Cited by
20
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6
FWCI
2.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Precision Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (P20GM104416, P20GM130454)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
basal cell carcinoma, intraoperative margin assessment, Mohs micrographic surgery, deep learning, skin cancer

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