mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Whole-Slide Image Focus Quality: Automatic Assessment and Impact on AI Cancer Detection

arXiv 1901.04619 ↗First posted 15 Jan 2019cs.CVcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Digital pathology enables remote access or consults and powerful image analysis algorithms. However, the slide digitization process can create artifacts such as out-of-focus (OOF). OOF is often only detected upon careful review, potentially causing rescanning and workflow delays. Although scan-time operator screening for whole-slide OOF is feasible, manual screening for OOF affecting only parts of a slide is impractical. We developed a convolutional neural network (ConvFocus) to exhaustively localize and quantify the severity of OOF regions on digitized slides. ConvFocus was developed using our refined semi-synthetic OOF data generation process, and evaluated using real whole-slide images spanning 3 different tissue types and 3 different stain types that were digitized by two different scanners. ConvFocus's predictions were compared with pathologist-annotated focus quality grades across 514 distinct regions representing 37,700 35x35 μm image patches, and 21 digitized "z-stack" whole-slide images that contain known OOF patterns. When compared to pathologist-graded focus quality, ConvFocus achieved Spearman rank coefficients of 0.81 and 0.94 on two scanners, and reproduced the expected OOF patterns from z-stack scanning. We also evaluated the impact of OOF on the accuracy of a state-of-the-art metastatic breast cancer detector and saw a consistent decrease in performance with increasing OOF. Comprehensive whole-slide OOF categorization could enable rescans prior to pathologist review, potentially reducing the impact of digitization focus issues on the clinical workflow. We show that the algorithm trained on our semi-synthetic OOF data generalizes well to real OOF regions across tissue types, stains, and scanners. Finally, quantitative OOF maps can flag regions that might otherwise be misclassified by image analysis algorithms, preventing OOF-induced errors.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Jan 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

12 papers.

  1. 2021A Comprehensive Review of Computer-aided Whole-slide Image Analysis: from Datasets to Feature Extraction, Segmentation, Classification, and Detection Approachescited by 44
  2. 2021Conditional Synthetic Data Generation for Robust Machine Learning Applications with Limited Pandemic Datacited by 18
  3. 2022Conditional Generation of Medical Time Series for Extrapolation to Underrepresented Populationscited by 14
  4. 2023Domain-specific optimization and diverse evaluation of self-supervised models for histopathologycited by 11
  5. 2024Equipping Computational Pathology Systems with Artifact Processing Pipelines: A Showcase for Computation and Performance Trade-offscited by 11
  6. 2021A State-of-the-art Survey of Artificial Neural Networks for Whole-slide Image Analysis:from Popular Convolutional Neural Networks to Potential Visual Transformerscited by 7
  7. 2023Augmenting Medical Imaging: A Comprehensive Catalogue of 65 Techniques for Enhanced Data Analysiscited by 7
  8. 2022Augment like there's no tomorrow: Consistently performing neural networks for medical imagingcited by 5
  9. 2026Histopath-C: Towards Realistic Domain Shifts for Histopathology Vision-Language Adaptationcited by 4
  10. 2022Conditional Synthetic Data Generation for Personal Thermal Comfort Modelscited by 1
  11. 2024A Mixture of Experts (MoE) model to improve AI-based computational pathology prediction performance under variable levels of histopathology image blurcited by 0
  12. 2025PathReasoning: A multimodal reasoning agent for query-based ROI navigation on whole-slide imagescited by 0