Cited by 45AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Artificial intelligence-based screening for mycobacteria in whole-slide images of tissue samples

Pantanowitz, Liron, Wu, Uno, Seigh, Lindsey, LoPresti, Edmund, Yeh, Fang-Cheng, Salgia, Payal, Michelow, Pamela, Hazelhurst, Scott +3 more·2021·American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and validate a deep learning algorithm to screen digitized acid fast-stained (AFS) slides for mycobacteria within tissue sections. METHODS: A total of 441 whole-slide images (WSIs) of AFS tissue material were used to develop a deep learning algorithm. Regions of interest with possible acid-fast bacilli (AFBs) were displayed in a web-based gallery format alongside corresponding WSIs for pathologist review. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted analysis of another 138 AFS slides was compared to manual light microscopy and WSI evaluation without AI support. RESULTS: Algorithm performance showed an area under the curve of 0.960 at the image patch level. More AI-assisted reviews identified AFBs than manual microscopy or WSI examination (P < .001). Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were highest for AI-assisted reviews. AI-assisted reviews also had the highest rate of matching the original sign-out diagnosis, were less time-consuming, and were much easier for pathologists to perform (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports the successful development and clinical validation of an AI-based digital pathology system to screen for AFBs in anatomic pathology material. AI assistance proved to be more sensitive and accurate, took pathologists less time to screen cases, and was easier to use than either manual microscopy or viewing WSIs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa215

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pantanowitz, L., Wu, U., Seigh, L., LoPresti, E., Yeh, F.-C., Salgia, P., Michelow, P., Hazelhurst, S., Chen, W.-Y., Hartman, D., & Yeh, C.-Y.
Affiliations
  • National Health Laboratory Service (ZA)
  • National Cheng Kung University (TW)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
  • Wan Fang Hospital (TW)
  • aetherAI, Taipei, Taiwan
Corresponding author
Pantanowitz, Liron
Venue
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Published
2021-02-02
Volume
156
Issue
1
Pages
117-128
ISSN
  • 0002-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7722
OpenAlex
W3127039237
Cited by
45
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
mycobacterial detection, acid-fast bacilli, whole slide images, deep learning, digital pathology, acid-fast staining, tuberculosis diagnosis, AI-assisted review, pathologist workload, diagnostic sensitivity
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Mycobacterium, Mycobacterium Infections, Pathology, Clinical

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