Cited by 231AI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Interpretable survival prediction for colorectal cancer using deep learning

Open access
Wulczyn, Ellery, Steiner, David F., Moran, Melissa, Plass, Markus, Reihs, Robert, Tan, Fraser, Flament-Auvigne, Isabelle, Brown, Trissia +15 more·2021·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Abstract Deriving interpretable prognostic features from deep-learning-based prognostic histopathology models remains a challenge. In this study, we developed a deep learning system (DLS) for predicting disease-specific survival for stage II and III colorectal cancer using 3652 cases (27,300 slides). When evaluated on two validation datasets containing 1239 cases (9340 slides) and 738 cases (7140 slides), respectively, the DLS achieved a 5-year disease-specific survival AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66–0.73) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64–0.72), and added significant predictive value to a set of nine clinicopathologic features. To interpret the DLS, we explored the ability of different human-interpretable features to explain the variance in DLS scores. We observed that clinicopathologic features such as T-category, N-category, and grade explained a small fraction of the variance in DLS scores ( R 2 = 18% in both validation sets). Next, we generated human-interpretable histologic features by clustering embeddings from a deep-learning-based image-similarity model and showed that they explained the majority of the variance ( R 2 of 73–80%). Furthermore, the clustering-derived feature most strongly associated with high DLS scores was also highly prognostic in isolation. With a distinct visual appearance (poorly differentiated tumor cell clusters adjacent to adipose tissue), this feature was identified by annotators with 87.0–95.5% accuracy. Our approach can be used to explain predictions from a prognostic deep learning model and uncover potentially-novel prognostic features that can be reliably identified by people for future validation studies.

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/s41746-021-00427-2

Cites

57 of 57 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?

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
Wulczyn, E., Steiner, D. F., Moran, M., Plass, M., Reihs, R., Tan, F., Flament-Auvigne, I., Brown, T., Regitnig, P., Chen, P.-H. C., Hegde, N., Sadhwani, A., MacDonald, R., Ayalew, B., Corrado, G. S., Peng, L. H., Tse, D., Müller, H., Xu, Z., Liu, Y., Stumpe, M. C., Zatloukal, K., & Mermel, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • Tempus Labs (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Liu, Yun
  • Mermel, Craig H.
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2021-04-19
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
71-71
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3098789188
Cited by
231
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 13
FWCI
13.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Google
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
colorectal cancer, explainable deep learning, histopathology, prognostic factors, embedding clustering, clinicopathological features, tumor differentiation, model explainability

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