Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Efficient Whole Slide Image Classification through Fisher Vector Representation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A small set of nucleus-rich patches plus a Fisher vector can classify whole slide images as accurately as exhaustive analysis.

desk verdict DFVC plus nucleus-count patch selection, honestly reported but undercut by its own Camelyon ablation; worth a referee round with expectation of heavy revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08530 v1 pith:LUKLJYCY submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CV cs.LG

Ravi Kant Gupta , Dadi Dharani , Shambhavi Shanker , Amit Sethi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG MSC 68T4568T0792C50
keywords wholeslideimageclassificationFishervectorpatchselectiondigitalpathologyweaklysupervisedlearningnucleuscountingcomputationalEGFRmutationprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a whole slide image can be classified from a small, fixed set of diagnostically selected patches encoded as a Fisher vector, rather than by exhaustively processing every patch. The authors argue that this focused patch selection plus Fisher vector representation matches or exceeds the accuracy of established full-slide and multiple-instance-learning methods while substantially reducing computation and memory. The claim is tested on EGFR mutation prediction in the TCGA Lung dataset and breast cancer metastasis detection in the Camelyon17 dataset. If correct, the result would make WSI classification more scalable for routine digital pathology workloads.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fisher vector representation of patch features, together with the nucleus-count patch selector. A Fisher vector encodes the distribution of a set of $D$-dimensional patch features by computing gradients of the log-likelihood with respect to the parameters of a Gaussian mixture model with $N$ Gaussians; concatenating the mean and covariance gradient blocks gives a vector of dimension $2ND$. The paper uses $N=5$, hand-set $\pi_m=0.2$ and $\sigma_m=0.1$, and compresses backbone features to $D=10$ dimensions, so the final per-slide descriptor is compact. The patch selector uses HistomicsTK tissue segmentation and nucleus counting to pick a fixed number of $512\times512$ patches at 40x magnification from the tissue region. This mechanism carries the argument by converting a WSI with hundreds of thousands of patches into a single small vector that a small classifier can handle.

What would settle it

Compare the proposed pipeline against an identical pipeline in which the fixed patch set is chosen at random instead of by nucleus count across a broad range of WSI tasks; a statistically powered replication where random selection consistently matches or beats nucleus-count selection would falsify the claim that nucleus-rich patches are the informative ones. Additionally, fit the GMM parameters by EM on the patch features instead of fixing $\pi_m=0.2$ and $\sigma_m=0.1$; if fitted parameters never improve over fixed ones, the FV codebook's learned statistics are not doing the work claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a whole slide image can be summarized by a compact Fisher vector computed from a small, fixed set of diagnostically selected patches, and that this summary supports classification that matches or exceeds exhaustive patch processing. The pipeline removes artifacts, detects tissue with HistomicsTK, extracts $512\times512$ patches at 40x zoom, filters noisy patches, and selects a fixed number of patches with the highest nucleus count. Features from a ResNet-50 or MobileNetV3small backbone are compressed to 10 dimensions, encoded through a Fisher vector with five Gaussians using fixed mixture weights $\pi_m=0.2$ and variances $\sigma_m=0.1$, and then average-pooled and passed to linear classifier layers. On the TCGA Lung EGFR binary task the ResNet-50 version reaches 0.85 accuracy (0.725 AUC), above the 0.80 accuracy of the deep Fisher vector coding baseline; on Camelyon17 it reaches 0.80 accuracy (0.72 AUC), above the baseline's 0.75. The paper also reports that its Camelyon17 ablation with randomly chosen fixed patches reached 0.81 accuracy, slightly above the 0.80 from high-cellularity patches, while the TCGA ablation favored high-cellularity patches (0.85 versus 0.67 random).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a patch's nucleus count marks its diagnostic value for every target task; the paper's own Camelyon17 ablation, where random fixed patches scored 0.81 versus 0.80 for high-cellularity patches, suggests this premise may not hold there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A whole slide image can be classified from a small, fixed number of patches rather than every patch in the tissue region.
  • Fisher vector encoding of the selected patches yields accuracy on the TCGA Lung EGFR task and the Camelyon17 metastasis task that is comparable to or better than the deep Fisher vector coding baseline.
  • Because only selected patches are processed, memory and compute per slide drop, making the pipeline more feasible for routine clinical workloads.
  • The method is end-to-end trainable from patch selection through classifier, unlike MIL pipelines that keep feature extraction separate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if the fixed-parameter Fisher vector performs as reported, a fitted GMM codebook may be unnecessary for small patch sets; comparing EM-fitted parameters against the fixed $\pi_m=0.2$, $\sigma_m=0.1$ settings would settle whether the codebook statistics actually matter.
  • Because random patches matched nucleus-count patches on Camelyon17, the informative-patch selection step may need to be task-specific or learned rather than based solely on cellularity.
  • Fisher-vector slide encoding with only five Gaussians produces a very compact descriptor, which suggests the same representation could serve fast slide-level retrieval or cross-center domain adaptation where per-slide storage and transfer cost matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage whole slide image (WSI) classification method: (i) preprocess each slide to select a fixed number of high-nucleus-count patches using HistomicsTK, and (ii) encode deep features from these patches with a Fisher vector (FV) representation built from a five-component Gaussian mixture model, followed by average pooling and a small fully connected classifier. The authors evaluate on TCGA Lung EGFR mutation classification and Camelyon17 metastasis detection, comparing against the DFVC baseline [1] and a multiple-instance-learning approach [3]. They claim that the focused selection of informative patches combined with FV encoding matches or exceeds standard practices while reducing computational load. The paper includes ablations comparing high-cellularity patch selection with random patch selection, and experiments with ResNet-50 and MobileNetV3small backbones.

Significance. If the claims were established, the method would provide a computationally efficient and clinically relevant alternative to exhaustive WSI processing, and the preprocessing pipeline (artifact removal, tissue detection, patching, nucleus counting) is a useful practical contribution. The paper also attempts ablations and multiple backbones, which is commendable. However, the central claims are not supported by the experiments as reported: the Fisher vector is not constructed according to the theory (GMM parameters are not fitted), the nucleus-count selection is contradicted by the Camelyon17 ablation, the TCGA ablation is confounded, and no uncertainty estimates are provided. The manuscript does not provide code or detailed experimental protocols, further limiting reproducibility. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic, so the current results cannot be taken as evidence for the method's effectiveness.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(4), and Section 4] The Fisher vector is not properly defined and is not fitted to the data. The text states that for a GMM with N Gaussians, the FV dimensionality is 2ND, but Eq. (1) claims FV: R(D+m) → R2m and displays a vector with 2M blocks. More importantly, the gradient formulas (2)-(3) require means and variances of a GMM estimated from the descriptor distribution, yet Section 4 states that the number of centers is set to five and that π_m=0.2 and σ_m=0.1 are configured by hand. No GMM fitting step is described anywhere. With arbitrary mixture parameters, the encoding is not a Fisher vector in the standard sense and does not capture the distribution of descriptors; the paper's claim that FV 'captures fine-grained details' is therefore unsupported. This is central to the method's novelty.
  2. [Section 5, Table 2 and accompanying text] The Camelyon17 ablation contradicts the central selection premise. The text reports that high-cellularity fixed patches yield 0.80 accuracy, while randomly chosen fixed patches yield 0.81 accuracy, and the authors themselves state that 'regions of high cellularity may not serve as reliable morphological biomarkers for metastasis detection.' Since nucleus-count selection is the core of the proposed focused-analysis approach, this result directly undermines the Abstract's claim that focused analysis of select patches aligns with or surpasses standard practices. No statistical significance test or repeated-run analysis is provided, so the 0.01 difference may be noise, but regardless, the proposed selection mechanism shows no benefit on this dataset.
  3. [Section 5, Table 1 and ablation paragraph] The TCGA Lung ablation that favors high-cellularity selection is confounded. The random-patch ablation uses ResNet-50 and reports 0.67 accuracy, while the MobileNetV3small result of 0.80 accuracy is described as using 'a larger number of fixed patches.' The comparison does not hold fixed the backbone, the number of patches, or other training details, so the difference between random and high-cellularity selection cannot be attributed to the selection criterion itself. A controlled experiment varying only the selection method, with identical patch count, backbone, and training configuration, is required to support the claim.
  4. [Section 5, Tables 1 and 2] No error bars, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of random seeds are reported for any experimental result. Each number appears to be from a single run. Given the small dataset sizes (159 TCGA slides; 500 Camelyon17 slides) and the known variability of deep-learning-based WSI classification, the reported differences (e.g., 0.80 vs. 0.81 on Camelyon17) are well within plausible run-to-run variation. Without repeated runs or uncertainty quantification, the comparative claims are not reliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The notation is ambiguous: the text reports 'accuracy of 0.85%' and 'AUC of 0.73%' while the tables are in units of percentage points (e.g., 0.85 accuracy would be 85%). This should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 1] The introduction contains an unresolved reference 'Fig. ??' for the sample images of the datasets; this should be fixed.
  3. [Section 3] There are typos such as 'dimenssion' and 'prepossessing' that should be corrected.
  4. [Section 5, Table 2 versus text] The text reports 'experiments utilizing the more compact MobileNetV3small model resulted in an accuracy of 0.74% and an AUC of 0.75%' while Table 2 lists 0.72 accuracy and 0.75 AUC for MobileNetV3small on Camelyon17; these numbers are inconsistent.
  5. [References] Reference [25] is incorrectly formatted ('S Jian, H Kaiming, R Shaoqing, and Z Xiangyu') and should be He et al., Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition; please verify all reference entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fisher-vector encoding and nucleus-count patch selection are inputs to a supervised classifier trained on external labels, not predictions derived from the target by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: select a fixed number of high-cellularity patches with HistomicsTK, encode their ImageNet features with the standard Fisher-vector equations (1)-(4), average-pool, and train a linear classifier with the WSI label. The Fisher-vector equations are textbook definitions that contain no label or accuracy term, and the GMM codebook hyperparameters (m=5, π_m=0.2, σ_m=0.1, Sec. 4) are hand-set rather than fitted to the target labels, so no reported accuracy is forced by construction. The central comparison is with an external baseline, DFVC [1], on external datasets (TCGA Lung, Camelyon17), and the FV scores are obtained by training, not by re-reading the input. The self-citations are not load-bearing: [3] supplies a MIL baseline number (0.52) and [21] supplies artifact-removal preprocessing; removing either would not change how the Fisher vector is computed or classified. The paper's own limitation statement that 'FV requires a pre-defined codebook and is computationally intensive, with performance sensitive to parameters and initial models, necessitating careful tuning' (Sec. 6) is an honest hyperparameter-sensitivity caveat, and the Camelyon17 ablation (random fixed patches 0.81 vs high-cellularity 0.80, Sec. 5) undercuts the patch-selection premise empirically; but a failed or fragile empirical premise is a correctness concern, not a circular one, because the claimed accuracy is not an identity with the selection rule. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-set numbers (m=5, π=0.2, σ=0.1), an unspecified patch count, and an unvalidated nucleus-count informativeness assumption. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of GMM components m = 5
    Section 4 sets the number of Fisher vector centers to five. The encoding dimension and capacity depend on this choice; no search or justification is given.
  • GMM component weights π_m = 0.2 for each of the 5 components
    Section 4 sets π_m at 0.2. These weights enter Eq. 4 and the normalization of Fisher gradients.
  • GMM component standard deviations σ_m = 0.1
    Section 4 sets σ_m at 0.1; Eqs. 2 and 3 divide gradient terms by σ_m, so this scales the entire encoding.
  • Number of selected patches per WSI = unspecified
    Section 3 takes 'a fixed number of patches' without stating the number. This hyperparameter controls both compute cost and information content.
  • Descriptor dimensionality after 1x1 convolution = 10
    Section 4 compresses the CNN descriptor space to 10 channels before Fisher vector encoding.
  • Nucleus-count selection threshold = unspecified
    Section 3 keeps only patches with high nuclei count, but no threshold, percentile, or count is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A small fixed number of patches per WSI is sufficient to represent the slide for classification.
    Section 3: 'We are taking fixed number of patches... as per compute availability.' The efficiency claim depends on this, yet the number and its sufficiency are not justified.
  • domain assumption Nucleus count computed by HistomicsTK is a reliable proxy for the pathological informativeness of a patch.
    Section 3 uses nucleus count to keep high-cellularity patches. The Camelyon17 random-patch ablation (0.81 vs 0.80, Section 5) puts this assumption in doubt.
  • ad hoc to paper A Fisher vector with five GMM components and hand-set π_m=0.2, σ_m=0.1 captures the descriptor distribution without fitting the GMM.
    Section 4 sets these values directly and gives no GMM training, initialization, or sensitivity analysis.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 and MobileNetV3 small features transfer to H&E histopathology patches after reducing channels to 10.
    Section 4 uses ImageNet weights with no pathology-specific pretraining or domain adaptation.
  • standard math The standard Fisher vector formulas (Eqs. 2-3) are valid as written.
    Section 3 cites the standard formulation, although the paper's own dimensionality statements (2ND versus 2m) are inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Whole Slide Image Classification through Fisher Vector Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUKLJYCY

@misc{pith2026241108530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Whole Slide Image Classification through Fisher Vector Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUKLJYCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08530}
}
read the original abstract

The advancement of digital pathology, particularly through computational analysis of whole slide images (WSI), is poised to significantly enhance diagnostic precision and efficiency. However, the large size and complexity of WSIs make it difficult to analyze and classify them using computers. This study introduces a novel method for WSI classification by automating the identification and examination of the most informative patches, thus eliminating the need to process the entire slide. Our method involves two-stages: firstly, it extracts only a few patches from the WSIs based on their pathological significance; and secondly, it employs Fisher vectors (FVs) for representing features extracted from these patches, which is known for its robustness in capturing fine-grained details. This approach not only accentuates key pathological features within the WSI representation but also significantly reduces computational overhead, thus making the process more efficient and scalable. We have rigorously evaluated the proposed method across multiple datasets to benchmark its performance against comprehensive WSI analysis and contemporary weakly-supervised learning methodologies. The empirical results indicate that our focused analysis of select patches, combined with Fisher vector representation, not only aligns with, but at times surpasses, the classification accuracy of standard practices. Moreover, this strategy notably diminishes computational load and resource expenditure, thereby establishing an efficient and precise framework for WSI analysis in the realm of digital pathology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Preprocessing framework: (a) represent thumbnail of WSI, (b) shows the tissue segmentation mask of WSI, (c) depicts patch generation from the tissue region of WSI, and (d) shows patches after filtering to get informative regions of WSI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall model framework visual knowledge to improve few-shot learning scenarios in WSI classification. This method aligns visual and textual features using a pre-trained vision-language model, addressing the challenge of limited training data and enhancing classification accuracy The major limitation of MIL-based methods are their exhaustive processing of every patch (or cell) in the grid through the encoder network… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for binary classification for two datasets: Camelyon17 and TCGA Lung. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep fisher vector coding for whole slide image classification

    Amir Akbarnejad, Nilanjan Ray, and Gilbert Bigras. Deep fisher vector coding for whole slide image classification. In 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 243–246. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [3]

    Egfr mutation prediction of lung biopsy images using deep learning

    Ravi Kant Gupta, Shivani Nandgaonkar, Nikhil Cherian Kurian, Tripti Bameta, Subhash Yadav, Rajiv Kumar Kaushal, Swapnil Rane, and Amit Sethi. Egfr mutation prediction of lung biopsy images using deep learning. 2023

    2023

  3. [2]

    Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning

    Nicolas Coudray, Paolo Santiago Ocampo, Theodore Sakellaropoulos, Navneet Narula, Matija Snuderl, David Fenyö, Andre L Moreira, Narges Razavian, and Aristotelis Tsirigos. Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning. Nature medicine, 24(10):1559–1567, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the camelyon17 challenge

    Peter Bandi, Oscar Geessink, Quirine Manson, Marcory Van Dijk, Maschenka Balkenhol, Meyke Hermsen, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Byungjae Lee, Kyunghyun Paeng, Aoxiao Zhong, et al. From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the camelyon17 challenge. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 38(2):550–560, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Deep learning for whole slide image analysis: an overview

    Neofytos Dimitriou, Ognjen Arandjelovi´c, and Peter D Caie. Deep learning for whole slide image analysis: an overview. Frontiers in medicine, 6:264, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: techniques and applications

    Asmaa Ibrahim, Paul Gamble, Ronnachai Jaroensri, Mohammed M Abdelsamea, Craig H Mermel, Po- Hsuan Cameron Chen, and Emad A Rakha. Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: techniques and applications. The Breast, 49:267–273, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Patch-based convolutional neural network for whole slide tissue image classification

    Le Hou, Dimitris Samaras, Tahsin M Kurc, Yi Gao, James E Davis, and Joel H Saltz. Patch-based convolutional neural network for whole slide tissue image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2424–2433, 2016. 7

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Monte-carlo sampling applied to multiple instance learning for histological image classification

    Marc Combalia and Verónica Vilaplana. Monte-carlo sampling applied to multiple instance learning for histological image classification. In International Workshop on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis, pages 274–281. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Da-refinenet: a dual input whole slide image segmentation algorithm based on attention

    Ziqiang Li, Rentuo Tao, Qianrun Wu, and Bin Li. Da-refinenet: a dual input whole slide image segmentation algorithm based on attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06358, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rectified cross-entropy and upper transition loss for weakly supervised whole slide image classifier

    Hanbo Chen, Xiao Han, Xinjuan Fan, Xiaoying Lou, Hailing Liu, Junzhou Huang, and Jianhua Yao. Rectified cross-entropy and upper transition loss for weakly supervised whole slide image classifier. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd I...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Learning deep features for discriminative localization

    Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2921–2929, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Weldon: Weakly supervised learning of deep convolutional neural networks

    Thibaut Durand, Nicolas Thome, and Matthieu Cord. Weldon: Weakly supervised learning of deep convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4743–4752, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Wildcat: Weakly supervised learning of deep convnets for image classification, pointwise localization and segmentation

    Thibaut Durand, Taylor Mordan, Nicolas Thome, and Matthieu Cord. Wildcat: Weakly supervised learning of deep convnets for image classification, pointwise localization and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 642–...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Multiple instance learning for heterogeneous images: Training a cnn for histopathology

    Heather D Couture, James Stephen Marron, Charles M Perou, Melissa A Troester, and Marc Niethammer. Multiple instance learning for heterogeneous images: Training a cnn for histopathology. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st Internatio...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Convolutional networks with dense connectivity

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Geoff Pleiss, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Convolutional networks with dense connectivity. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 44(12):8704–8716, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Attention-challenging multiple instance learning for whole slide image classification, 2024

    Yunlong Zhang, Honglin Li, Yuxuan Sun, Sunyi Zheng, Chenglu Zhu, and Lin Yang. Attention-challenging multiple instance learning for whole slide image classification, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Prompt-guided adaptive model transformation for whole slide image classification, 2024

    Yi Lin, Zhengjie Zhu, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Hao Chen. Prompt-guided adaptive model transformation for whole slide image classification, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pathology-knowledge enhanced multi-instance prompt learning for few-shot whole slide image classification, 2024

    Linhao Qu, Dingkang Yang, Dan Huang, Qinhao Guo, Rongkui Luo, Shaoting Zhang, and Xiaosong Wang. Pathology-knowledge enhanced multi-instance prompt learning for few-shot whole slide image classification, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Data- efficient and weakly supervised computational pathology on whole-slide images

    Ming Y Lu, Drew FK Williamson, Tiffany Y Chen, Richard J Chen, Matteo Barbieri, and Faisal Mahmood. Data- efficient and weakly supervised computational pathology on whole-slide images. Nature biomedical engineering, 5(6):555–570, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Improving the fisher kernel for large-scale image classification

    Florent Perronnin, Jorge Sánchez, and Thomas Mensink. Improving the fisher kernel for large-scale image classification. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2010: 11th European Conference on Computer Vision, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5-11, 2010, Proceedings, Part IV 11, pages 143...

    2010

  13. [21]

    Efficient quality control of whole slide pathology images with human-in-the-loop training

    Abhijeet Patil, Harsh Diwakar, Jay Sawant, Nikhil Cherian Kurian, Subhash Yadav, Swapnil Rane, Tripti Bameta, and Amit Sethi. Efficient quality control of whole slide pathology images with human-in-the-loop training. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 14:100306, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    https://github.com/DigitalSlideArchive/HistomicsTK

    Histomicstk. https://github.com/DigitalSlideArchive/HistomicsTK. Accessed: [12/10/2023]

    2023

  15. [23]

    Enhanced bag of visual words representations for content based image retrieval: a comparative study

    KS Arun, VK Govindan, and SD Madhu Kumar. Enhanced bag of visual words representations for content based image retrieval: a comparative study. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53:1615–1653, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Understanding the fisher vector: a multimodal part model

    David Novotn `y, Diane Larlus, Florent Perronnin, and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding the fisher vector: a multimodal part model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.04763, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    S Jian, H Kaiming, R Shaoqing, and Z Xiangyu. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Searching for mobilenetv3

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, et al. Searching for mobilenetv3. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1314–1324, 2019. 8

    2019

  19. [27]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset

    Geert Litjens, Peter Bandi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Oscar Geessink, Maschenka Balkenhol, Peter Bult, Altuna Halilovic, Meyke Hermsen, Rob van de Loo, Rob V ogels, et al. 1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset. GigaScienc...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.