mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in digital pathology

arXiv 2503.23021 ↗First posted 29 Mar 2025cs.CVcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Tissue detection is a crucial first step in most digital pathology applications. Details of the segmentation algorithm are rarely reported, and there is a lack of studies investigating the downstream effects of a poor segmentation algorithm. Disregarding tissue detection quality could create a bottleneck for downstream performance and jeopardize patient safety if diagnostically relevant parts of the specimen are excluded from analysis in clinical applications. This study aims to determine whether performance of downstream tasks is sensitive to the tissue detection method, and to compare performance of classical and AI-based tissue detection. To this end, we trained an AI model for Gleason grading of prostate cancer in whole slide images (WSIs) using two different tissue detection algorithms: thresholding (classical) and UNet++ (AI). A total of 33,823 WSIs scanned on five digital pathology scanners were used to train the tissue detection AI model. The downstream Gleason grading algorithm was trained and tested using 70,524 WSIs from 13 clinical sites scanned on 13 different scanners. There was a decrease from 116 (0.43%) to 22 (0.08%) fully undetected tissue samples when switching from thresholding-based tissue detection to AI-based, suggesting an AI model may be more reliable than a classical model for avoiding total failures on slides with unusual appearance. On the slides where tissue could be detected by both algorithms, no significant difference in overall Gleason grading performance was observed. However, tissue detection dependent clinically significant variations in AI grading were observed in 3.5% of malignant slides, highlighting the importance of robust tissue detection for optimal clinical performance of diagnostic AI.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Mar 2025.

Builds on

12 of 44 references.

References · 12

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
  2. 2018UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,518
  3. 2021EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Trainingcited by 1,127
  4. 2020Data Efficient and Weakly Supervised Computational Pathology on Whole Slide Imagescited by 738
  5. 2021Going Deeper through the Gleason Scoring Scale: An Automatic end-to-end System for Histology Prostate Grading and Cribriform Pattern Detectioncited by 66
  6. 2020A Generalized Deep Learning Framework for Whole-Slide Image Segmentation and Analysiscited by 45
  7. 2018Terabyte-scale Deep Multiple Instance Learning for Classification and Localization in Pathologycited by 16
  8. 2021Transcriptome-wide prediction of prostate cancer gene expression from histopathology images using co-expression based convolutional neural networkscited by 9
  9. 2023An interpretable machine learning system for colorectal cancer diagnosis from pathology slidescited by 7
  10. 2023Slideflow: Deep Learning for Digital Histopathology with Real-Time Whole-Slide Visualizationcited by 7
  11. 2022Predicting microsatellite instability and key biomarkers in colorectal cancer from H&E-stained images: Achieving SOTA predictive performance with fewer data using Swin Transformercited by 6
  12. 2017Comparison of Different Methods for Tissue Segmentation in Histopathological Whole-Slide Imagescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.