Cited by 344AI in cancer detectionMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Deep Learning-Based Histopathologic Assessment of Kidney Tissue

Open access
Hermsen, Meyke, de Bel, Thomas, den Boer, Marjolijn, Steenbergen, Eric J., Kers, Jesper, Florquin, Sandrine, Roelofs, Joris J. T. H., Stegall, Mark D. +5 more·2019·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

Significance Statement Histopathologic assessment of kidney tissue currently relies on manual scoring or traditional image-processing techniques to quantify and classify tissue features, time-consuming approaches that have limited reproducibility. The authors present an alternative approach, featuring a convolutional neural network for multiclass segmentation of kidney tissue in sections stained by periodic acid–Schiff. Their findings demonstrate applicability of convolutional neural networks for tissue from multiple centers, for biopsies and nephrectomy samples, and for the analysis of both healthy and pathologic tissues. In addition, they validated the network’s results with components from the Banff classification system. Their convolutional neural network may have utility for quantitative studies involving kidney histopathology across centers and potential for application in routine diagnostics. Background The development of deep neural networks is facilitating more advanced digital analysis of histopathologic images. We trained a convolutional neural network for multiclass segmentation of digitized kidney tissue sections stained with periodic acid–Schiff (PAS). Methods We trained the network using multiclass annotations from 40 whole-slide images of stained kidney transplant biopsies and applied it to four independent data sets. We assessed multiclass segmentation performance by calculating Dice coefficients for ten tissue classes on ten transplant biopsies from the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and on ten transplant biopsies from an external center for validation. We also fully segmented 15 nephrectomy samples and calculated the network’s glomerular detection rates and compared network-based measures with visually scored histologic components (Banff classification) in 82 kidney transplant biopsies. Results The weighted mean Dice coefficients of all classes were 0.80 and 0.84 in ten kidney transplant biopsies from the Radboud center and the external center, respectively. The best segmented class was “glomeruli” in both data sets (Dice coefficients, 0.95 and 0.94, respectively), followed by “tubuli combined” and “interstitium.” The network detected 92.7% of all glomeruli in nephrectomy samples, with 10.4% false positives. In whole transplant biopsies, the mean intraclass correlation coefficient for glomerular counting performed by pathologists versus the network was 0.94. We found significant correlations between visually scored histologic components and network-based measures. Conclusions This study presents the first convolutional neural network for multiclass segmentation of PAS-stained nephrectomy samples and transplant biopsies. Our network may have utility for quantitative studies involving kidney histopathology across centers and provide opportunities for deep learning applications in routine diagnostics.

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 · 10.1681/asn.2019020144

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Hermsen et al. developed and successfully implemented a deep learning algorithm (a convolutional neural network) that divided kidney biopsies from different centers into their anatomical components.

    “In a recent study, Hermsen et al., successfully implemented a deep learning algorithm to divide kidney biopsies from different centers into their anatomical components (46).”
  • The same Hermsen et al. algorithm worked on histological samples from different centers, thereby addressing the issue of reproducibility.

    “Most importantly, the authors proved that the same algorithm worked on histological samples from different centers, thereby addressing the issue of reproducibility.”
  • The Hermsen et al. algorithm performed well in identifying healthy glomeruli but struggled to identify more challenging structures such as sclerotic glomeruli or atrophic tubuli.

    “While the algorithm performed well in identifying healthy glomeruli, it struggled to identify more challenging structures such as sclerotic glomeruli or atrophic tubuli.”

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: 1

  1. The Ragon Institute of the Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Divisions of 5 Transplantation surgery, 7 Pathology, and 8 Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, and 6

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hermsen, M., de Bel, T., den Boer, M., Steenbergen, E. J., Kers, J., Florquin, S., Roelofs, J. J. T. H., Stegall, M. D., Alexander, M. P., Smith, B. H., Smeets, B., Hilbrands, L. B., & van der Laak, J. A. W. M.
Affiliations
  • Pathology and
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2019-09-05
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1968-1979
ISSN
  • 1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-3450
OpenAlex
W2972214324
Cited by
344
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 4
FWCI
18.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (9003035004)
  • Dutch Kidney Foundation (17OKG23)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
kidney histopathology, convolutional neural networks, PAS staining, kidney transplant biopsy, Banff classification, whole slide images, quantitative histopathology, interstitial space
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Biopsy, Humans, Kidney, Nephrectomy, Kidney Transplantation

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