Cited by 349AI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deep Learning for Classification of Colorectal Polyps on Whole-slide Images

Open access

Abstract

CONTEXT: Histopathological characterization of colorectal polyps is critical for determining the risk of colorectal cancer and future rates of surveillance for patients. However, this characterization is a challenging task and suffers from significant inter- and intra-observer variability. AIMS: We built an automatic image analysis method that can accurately classify different types of colorectal polyps on whole-slide images to help pathologists with this characterization and diagnosis. SETTING AND DESIGN: Our method is based on deep-learning techniques, which rely on numerous levels of abstraction for data representation and have shown state-of-the-art results for various image analysis tasks. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Our method covers five common types of polyps (i.e., hyperplastic, sessile serrated, traditional serrated, tubular, and tubulovillous/villous) that are included in the US Multisociety Task Force guidelines for colorectal cancer risk assessment and surveillance. We developed multiple deep-learning approaches by leveraging a dataset of 2074 crop images, which were annotated by multiple domain expert pathologists as reference standards. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated our method on an independent test set of 239 whole-slide images and measured standard machine-learning evaluation metrics of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Our evaluation shows that our method with residual network architecture achieves the best performance for classification of colorectal polyps on whole-slide images (overall accuracy: 93.0%, 95% confidence interval: 89.0%-95.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our method can reduce the cognitive burden on pathologists and improve their efficacy in histopathological characterization of colorectal polyps and in subsequent risk assessment and follow-up recommendations.

Overview

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 · 10.4103/jpi.jpi_34_17

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Samples with different colorectal polyps: (a) hyperplastic, (b) sessile serrated, (c) traditional serrated, (d) tubular, (e) tubulovillous/villous, and (f) normal, (H&E)
Figure 1 Samples with different colorectal polyps: (a) hyperplastic, (b) sessile serrated, (c) traditional serrated, (d) tubular, (e) tubulovillous/villous, and (f) normal, (H&E)CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Residual block: The mechanism of a sample residual block in the ResNet architecture[43]
Figure 2 Residual block: The mechanism of a sample residual block in the ResNet architecture[43]CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Model training: Training loss per iteration for 152 layer ResNet model on training and validation sets
Figure 3 Model training: Training loss per iteration for 152 layer ResNet model on training and validation setsCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Whole-slide image classification: Overview of our approach for classification of colorectal polyps on whole-slide, (H&E)
Figure 4 Whole-slide image classification: Overview of our approach for classification of colorectal polyps on whole-slide, (H&E)CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bengio, 2009, Vol. 2, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 349

Metadata

Authors
Korbar, B., Olofson, A. M., Miraflor, A. P., Nicka, C. M., Suriawinata, M. A., Torresani, L., Suriawinata, A. A., & Hassanpour, S.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Hassanpour, Saeed
Venue
Journal of Pathology Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
30
ISSN
2153-3539 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2594760301
Cited by
349
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3
FWCI
16.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pathology Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Dartmouth College
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
colorectal polyps, whole slide images, histological classification, colorectal cancer risk assessment, hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated polyps, traditional serrated adenoma, tubular adenoma, villous adenoma, ResNet, computer-aided diagnosis, observer variability

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