Cited by 315AI in cancer detectionMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesCell Image Analysis Techniques

Structured crowdsourcing enables convolutional segmentation of histology images

Open access
Amgad, Mohamed, Elfandy, Habiba, Hussein, Hagar, Atteya, Lamees A, Elsebaie, Mai A T, Abo Elnasr, Lamia S, Sakr, Rokia A, Salem, Hazem S E +23 more·2019·Bioinformatics

Abstract

MOTIVATION: While deep-learning algorithms have demonstrated outstanding performance in semantic image segmentation tasks, large annotation datasets are needed to create accurate models. Annotation of histology images is challenging due to the effort and experience required to carefully delineate tissue structures, and difficulties related to sharing and markup of whole-slide images. RESULTS: We recruited 25 participants, ranging in experience from senior pathologists to medical students, to delineate tissue regions in 151 breast cancer slides using the Digital Slide Archive. Inter-participant discordance was systematically evaluated, revealing low discordance for tumor and stroma, and higher discordance for more subjectively defined or rare tissue classes. Feedback provided by senior participants enabled the generation and curation of 20 000+ annotated tissue regions. Fully convolutional networks trained using these annotations were highly accurate (mean AUC=0.945), and the scale of annotation data provided notable improvements in image classification accuracy. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Dataset is freely available at: https://goo.gl/cNM4EL. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz083

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Standardized open-source tools, collaborative multi-institutional annotation efforts, and AI-assisted annotation workflows reduce manual burden.

    “Emerging solutions include standardized open-source tools (e.g., QuPath) [44], collaborative multi-institutional annotation efforts, and AI-assisted annotation workflows that reduce manual burden [45].”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion describes structured crowdsourcing in which non-experts perform much of the time-consuming annotation work, and Methods §2.7 describes slides from multiple institutes. The paper does not show AI assisting annotators to reduce manual work: its segmentation models were trained on crowdsourced annotations. QuPath is cited separately as [44], not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These studies showed there are correlations between characterizations of TIL patterns, as analyzed by computerized algorithms, and patient survival rates and groupings of patients based on subclasses of immunotypes.

    “These studies showed there are correlations between characterizations of TIL patterns, as analyzed by computerized algorithms, and patient survival rates and groupings of patients based on subclasses of immunotypes.”

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. Long J. et al (2015) Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp. 3431– 3440.
  2. Su H. et al (2012) Crowdsourcing annotations for visual object detection. In: Workshops at the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 1. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amgad, M., Elfandy, H., Hussein, H., Atteya, L. A., Elsebaie, M. A. T., Abo Elnasr, L. S., Sakr, R. A., Salem, H. S. E., Ismail, A. F., Saad, A. M., Ahmed, J., Elsebaie, M. A. T., Rahman, M., Ruhban, I. A., Elgazar, N. M., Alagha, Y., Osman, M. H., Alhusseiny, A. M., Khalaf, M. M., Younes, A.-A. F., Abdulkarim, A., Younes, D. M., Gadallah, A. M., Elkashash, A. M., Fala, S. Y., Zaki, B. M., Beezley, J., Chittajallu, D. R., Manthey, D., Gutman, D. A., & Cooper, L. A. D.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute , Cairo, Egypt
  • Cairo University (EG)
  • Ministry of Health and Population (EG)
  • Ain Shams University (EG)
  • Department of Medicine, Menoufia University , Menoufia, Egypt
  • Menoufia University (EG)
  • Alexandria University (EG)
  • University of Chittagong (BD)
  • Damascus University (SY)
  • Mansoura University (EG)
  • Zagazig University (EG)
  • Batterjee Medical College (SA)
  • Suez Canal University (EG)
  • Kitware (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Lee A D
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
35
Issue
18
Pages
3461-3467
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2922239620
Cited by
315
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 1
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • U.S. National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute grants (U01CA220401, U24CA194362)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
breast cancer, whole slide images, annotated dataset, fully convolutional network
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Breast Neoplasms, Histological Techniques, Humans, Crowdsourcing

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