Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 91 references

Computational Methods for Breast Cancer Molecular Profiling through Routine Histopathology: A Review

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 This review argues that artificial intelligence can extract a large part of the breast cancer molecular profile—hormone receptor status, HER2, Ki-67, PD-L1, gene mutations, gene expression levels, molecular subtypes, and protein…

desk verdict A useful but imperfect review: solid organization and gap analysis, with table transcription errors that need fixing before it can be trusted as a reference map. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10392 v1 pith:KRAXL2GA submitted 2024-12-01 q-bio.QM cs.CVcs.LG

Suchithra Kunhoth , Somaya Al- Maadeed , Younes Akbari , Rafif Al Saady This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.CVcs.LG
keywords breastcancermolecularprofilinghistopathologyH&Eimagesdeeplearningbiomarkersomicsprecisionmedicine
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 review argues that artificial intelligence can extract a large part of the breast cancer molecular profile—hormone receptor status, HER2, Ki-67, PD-L1, gene mutations, gene expression levels, molecular subtypes, and protein abundance—directly from routine H&E-stained tissue sections, without the special stains, sequencing, or other assays those measurements normally require. It organizes the field into non-omic biomarkers, the proteins detected in the clinic by IHC, and omic biomarkers such as genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic markers, and for each category it catalogs the methods, datasets, and reported performance. The assembled evidence points to receptor and protein biomarkers as well explored, while omic biomarkers remain limited mainly by the scarcity of datasets that pair histopathology images with molecular profiles. If the map is accurate, it gives researchers and clinicians a concrete picture of which H&E-based predictions are close to usable and where the remaining bottlenecks are.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the digitized H&E whole-slide image cut into tiles, processed by convolutional networks or vision transformers, usually trained with weakly supervised multiple-instance learning (MIL), in which only the slide-level molecular label is known and the model learns which tissue regions carry the signal. The review's organizing device is a biomarker taxonomy that separates non-omic protein biomarkers (ER, PR, HER2, Ki-67, PD-L1), detectable today by IHC/FISH, from omic biomarkers (genomic mutations and copy-number changes, transcriptomic expression and subtypes, proteomic abundance, metabolomic features), which normally require sequencing or mass spectrometry. Within that taxonomy, the evidence for the central claim is carried by tabulated studies that predict molecular states from H&E alone, including pan-cancer single-model predictors and transcriptome-wide expression regression, together with domain-specific pretraining and explainability techniques that locate the morphological features driving each prediction.

What would settle it

Open the original Nature Communications paper for study [60] and count the genes significantly associated with RNA-seq expression in breast cancer: if the true number is 2,902 rather than roughly 10,000, the review's text overstates the result by a factor of three, and a spot-check of the other table entries, say the AUCs claimed for ER and HER2 predictions, would be the next decisive test of whether the review's map of the field is trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that modern deep learning models can predict multiple breast cancer biomarkers from H&E whole-slide images with clinically meaningful accuracy, and that the same approach can be pushed beyond single markers to omic-scale inference, including expression of thousands of genes, mutation and copy-number status of key genes, PAM50 molecular subtypes, and protein levels. The authors report that ER, PR, HER2, and Ki-67 predictions are comparatively mature, with many studies reporting AUCs above 0.75, while PD-L1 and Ki-67 are noticeably under-explored, HER2 scoring has been validated on a single benchmark cohort, and omic biomarker prediction is dominated by TCGA-based studies whose generalizability across populations has not been established. They conclude that the bottleneck is not algorithmic but data-related: models succeed when paired histopathology-molecular datasets exist, and progress will accelerate as those datasets grow, diversify, and become accessible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the performance numbers and dataset details compiled in the tables faithfully reproduce the primary papers; the review itself contains an internal contradiction about study [60], which the text credits with roughly 10,000 significantly predicted genes while Table 6 reports 2,902, so if other rows contain similar transcription errors, the gap analysis and clinical conclusions are weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reviewed results hold, routine H&E slides could eventually serve as a first-line molecular readout, reserving IHC, FISH, and sequencing for confirmation, which would cut cost and turnaround time.
  • HER2 scoring from H&E is accurate enough in validation cohorts to argue for multi-center validation and prospective testing, but currently rests on a single public benchmark.
  • Omic predictions, especially gene expression and mutation status, are feasible but dataset-limited; expanding paired image-omics cohorts beyond TCGA, and across ethnic groups, is the direct next step.
  • Domain-specific pretraining on histopathology images consistently outperforms ImageNet pretraining, indicating that foundation models trained on tissue are a natural route to better biomarker prediction.
  • Explainability tools such as tile-level heatmaps and attention-consistency scores will be needed to convert a statistically successful model into something a pathologist can trust and a regulator can evaluate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this line of work matures, a consequence the authors do not spell out is that archived H&E slides, collected for decades without molecular data, could be re-analyzed retrospectively to screen for gene-expression signatures or mutations, effectively creating molecular cohorts from existing tissue banks.
  • The catalog implies a predictability gradient: biomarkers with a visible morphological footprint, such as CDH1-mutant lobular cancer, are predicted more accurately, which suggests that gene selection for future image-based assays should prioritize mutations with strong phenotypic effects.
  • The discrepancy between the text and Table 6 for study [60] (about 10,000 versus 2,902 significantly predicted genes) is a concrete warning that the review's transcribed numbers need independent verification before the gap analysis guides research funding or clinical planning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a narrative review of artificial-intelligence and computational methods for predicting breast cancer molecular biomarkers from routine H&E-stained histopathology images. It categorizes work into non-omic biomarkers (ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, PD-L1), HER2 scoring, and omic biomarkers (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics), and summarizes each study in tables that list datasets, patient counts, objectives, performance metrics, and methods. The review argues that AI can predict multiple molecular biomarkers from H&E images, that receptor and protein biomarkers are relatively well explored, and that omic biomarker prediction remains limited, largely by dataset availability. It closes with discussion of datasets, annotation, architectures, interpretability, and future directions.

Significance. If the table transcriptions are reliable, the review would be a useful entry-level map of this fast-moving field: it organizes a large set of primary studies by biomarker type, includes datasets and performance numbers, and its discussion of weakly supervised learning, domain-specific pretraining, and explainability is sensible. The stated focus on medical relevance and the explicit comparison with prior reviews in Table 2 give it a plausible niche. However, the review's value as a reliable map depends on the fidelity of Tables 3 through 8 to the primary literature, and the manuscript currently contains at least two visible transcription problems. Because the paper does not report a systematic search or inclusion protocol, readers also cannot audit whether the included studies are representative enough to support the "comprehensive review" claim. The subject is important and the paper is readable, but the evidence base for its main claims needs strengthening before it can be accepted as a dependable reference.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2–3] The review claims comprehensiveness but reports no literature-search strategy: no databases, search strings, date range, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or screening process are described. Section 3 and Table 2 position the work as covering "Dataset Details" and "Computational-Clinical Link" in a way that implies a systematic comparison, yet the selection of the 90-odd cited studies is not reproducible. Without a documented protocol, the central claim of a comprehensive review cannot be audited, and the reader cannot distinguish an intended representative sample from an arbitrary one.
  2. [Section 5.2.1 and Table 6, study [60]] There is an internal contradiction in the reported gene count for the HER2NA study. Section 5.2.1 states that the model "effectively predicted approximately 10,000 genes with adjusted p-values below 0.05 specifically for breast cancer," whereas Table 6 reports for the same study that "2902 genes are significantly well predicted." These two numbers cannot both describe the same breast-cancer-specific result; one is likely the pan-cancer count and one the breast-cancer count, but the review does not say so. Because Table 6 is the main evidence for the transcriptomics section, this discrepancy must be resolved and the same check applied to all table rows.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 3, row [26]] The Method column of Table 3 for reference [26] says "CycleGAN to normalize staining variations, Resnet34 network pretrained on the ImageNet dataset for classification," but the text immediately above the table describes [26] as a tissue-fingerprint pretraining approach that learns to pair left/right halves of pathologic images, with no mention of CycleGAN. If CycleGAN is used in the primary paper, the text should say so; if it is not, the table row is a transcription error. Either way, the discrepancy between the table and the narrative in the same section indicates that the tables have not been systematically verified against the cited sources.
  4. [Section 6 and Section 7] The main gap analysis—that protein biomarkers are well explored while omic biomarkers are limited by dataset availability—is built directly on the census of studies in Tables 3 through 8. Given the confirmed transcription issues in Table 3 and Table 6, the current manuscript does not yet establish that the remaining rows are accurate enough to support this conclusion. The authors should either perform a systematic verification of all performance numbers and dataset descriptions against the primary papers or qualify the claimed comprehensiveness and the quantitative parts of the gap analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3, row [29]] The table gives both "TCGA: 939, ABCTB: 2535" in the Dataset column and "TCGA: 1014, ABCTB: 2535" in the Size column for the same study; the review should clarify which figure is the number of patients and which is the number of slides or WSIs.
  2. [Section 6] The sentence "super-resolution techniques in spatial transcriptomic profiling [69]" appears to cite the wrong reference: [69] is the VGG16-based study by Monjo et al., while the super-resolution spatial-transcriptomics prediction method is reference [70].
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous formatting and typographical errors, including missing spaces in the running text (e.g., "Theworkpresentedin[25]aimstodiscriminate" and "identifyspecificbiomarkersthatarerelatedtothediseaseoccurrence"), which reduce readability and should be corrected.
  4. [Table 2] The checkmark/cross symbols in Table 2 are not defined in a legend; the reader must infer that they denote presence or absence of a feature, and a legend would make the comparison unambiguous.
  5. [Section 5.2.1] The abbreviation HER2NA is introduced for study [60] but the method is described in Table 6 only as a "50-layer ResNet pretrained on the ImageNet"; the table should mention the HER2NA name or explain the relationship.
  6. [Section 6] The discussion of weak supervision notes that [38] reported significant differences between patch-level and slide-level labels, but it does not give the quantitative performance gap; adding the ER/PR/Ki67/HER2 numbers would make the point more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review summarizes external primary literature, and its few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative review of computational methods for predicting breast cancer biomarkers from H&E images. It does not derive new results, fit parameters, or construct predictions from its own assumptions. The central claims—that AI can predict receptor and protein biomarkers from H&E slides and that omic biomarker prediction is constrained by dataset availability—are summaries of the cited primary studies, and they do not reduce to any definition or fitted quantity within the review itself. The authors cite two of their own works ([10] and [90]), but these are used only as general references for breast cancer detection and explainable multimodal histopathology analysis; neither citation carries the argument, and neither is invoked to justify the review's classification scheme, performance tables, or gap analysis. The most significant reliability concern is the internal discrepancy between Section 5.2.1, which credits study [60] with predicting approximately 10,000 genes for breast cancer, and Table 6, which reports 2,902 significantly well-predicted genes for the same study. This is a transcription or attribution error in summarizing external results, not a circular step: the discrepancy concerns fidelity to the primary literature, not the review deriving its conclusions from its own outputs. Similarly, the apparent mismatch between Table 3's method description for reference [26] (CycleGAN) and the text's description (tissue fingerprints) is a reporting inconsistency, not a case where an input is renamed as a prediction. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-chain, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities are introduced. The paper is a literature review; its only debts are to the primary studies it summarizes and the background assumptions above.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Performance metrics in the cited primary papers are accurately transcribed into the review tables.
    The review adds no new experiments; its synthesis and gap claims depend on correct numbers. The contradiction between Section 5.2.1 and Table 6 for study [60] shows this assumption can fail.
  • domain assumption H&E morphology carries learnable signal about molecular biomarkers.
    The motivation (Section 2, Figure 1) and most cited works assume that histology morphology encodes molecular status that can be read by AI. This is the field's core premise, not established by the review.
  • ad hoc to paper The selected literature is representative enough to support the 'comprehensive review' claim.
    No search strategy or inclusion criteria are reported, so the coverage claim rests on the authors' implicit selection. This cannot be audited from the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computational Methods for Breast Cancer Molecular Profiling through Routine Histopathology: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRAXL2GA

@misc{pith2026241210392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computational Methods for Breast Cancer Molecular Profiling through Routine Histopathology: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRAXL2GA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10392}
}
read the original abstract

Precision medicine has become a central focus in breast cancer management, advancing beyond conventional methods to deliver more precise and individualized therapies. Traditionally, histopathology images have been used primarily for diagnostic purposes; however, they are now recognized for their potential in molecular profiling, which provides deeper insights into cancer prognosis and treatment response. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled digital pathology to analyze histopathologic images for both targeted molecular and broader omic biomarkers, marking a pivotal step in personalized cancer care. These technologies offer the capability to extract various biomarkers such as genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic markers directly from the routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained images, which can support treatment decisions without the need for costly molecular assays. In this work, we provide a comprehensive review of AI-driven techniques for biomarker detection, with a focus on diverse omic biomarkers that allow novel biomarker discovery. Additionally, we analyze the major challenges faced in this field for robust algorithm development. These challenges highlight areas where further research is essential to bridge the gap between AI research and clinical application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conventional workflow in breast cancer management from screening to person [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All the individual molecular biomarkers are classified as non-omic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of molecular profiling approaches in breast cancer, each contributing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Schmauch, A

    B. Schmauch, A. Romagnoni, E. Pronier, C. Saillard, P. Maillé, J. Calderaro, A. Kamoun, M. Sefta, S. Toldo, M. Zaslavskiy, et al., A deep learning model to predict rna-seq expression of tumours from whole slide images, Nature communications 11 (1) (2020) 3877

    work page 2020

  2. [26]

    fingerprints

    R. Rawat, I. Ortega, P. Roy, F. Sha, D. Shibata, et al., Deep learned tissue “fingerprints” classify breast cancers by er/pr/her2 status from h&e images. sci rep 10: 7275 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    Løyland, I

    B. Løyland, I. H. Sandbekken, E. K. Grov, I. Utne, Causes and risk factorsofbreastcancer, whatdoweknowforsure? anevidencesynthesis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Cancers 16 (8) (2024)

    2024

  4. [2]

    URL https://qcic.moph.gov.qa/nas/documents/annual-report/ QNCR-2020-English.pdf?csrt=18323952505327346328 40

    QCIC, Cancer statistics: Annual report 2020, last accessed 27 Novem- ber 2024. URL https://qcic.moph.gov.qa/nas/documents/annual-report/ QNCR-2020-English.pdf?csrt=18323952505327346328 40

    2020

  5. [3]

    Lüönd, S

    F. Lüönd, S. Tiede, G. Christofori, Breast cancer as an example of tumour heterogeneity and tumour cell plasticity during malignant pro- gression, British journal of cancer 125 (2) (2021) 164–175

    2021

  6. [4]

    Bottosso, F

    M. Bottosso, F. Mosele, S. Michiels, P.-H. Cournède, S. Dogan, C. Labaki, F. André, Moving toward precision medicine to predict drug sensitivity in patients with metastatic breast cancer, ESMO Open 9 (3) (2024) 102247

    2024

  7. [5]

    E. R. Malone, M. Oliva, P. J. Sabatini, T. L. Stockley, L. L. Siu, Molec- ular profiling for precision cancer therapies, Genome medicine 12 (2020) 1–19

    2020

  8. [6]

    Quezada, A

    H. Quezada, A. L. Guzmán-Ortiz, H. Díaz-Sánchez, R. Valle-Rios, J. Aguirre-Hernández, Omics-based biomarkers: current status and po- tential use in the clinic, Boletín Médico Del Hospital Infantil de México (English Edition) 74 (3) (2017) 219–226

    2017

Show all 91 references
  1. [7]

    Neagu, D

    A.-N. Neagu, D. Whitham, P. Bruno, H. Morrissiey, C. A. Darie, C. C. Darie, Omics-based investigations of breast cancer, Molecules 28 (12) (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    Neves Rebello Alves, D

    L. Neves Rebello Alves, D. Dummer Meira, L. Poppe Merigueti, M. Cor- reia Casotti, D. do Prado Ventorim, J. Ferreira Figueiredo Almeida, V. Pereira de Sousa, M. Cindra Sant’Ana, R. Gonçalves Coutinho da Cruz, L. Santos Louro, et al., Biomarkers in breast cancer: an old story w...

    2023

  3. [9]

    Zhang, Molecular classification of breast cancer: Relevance and chal- lenges, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 147 (1) (2023) 46–51

    X. Zhang, Molecular classification of breast cancer: Relevance and chal- lenges, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 147 (1) (2023) 46–51

    2023

  4. [10]

    Abdullakutty, Y

    F. Abdullakutty, Y. Akbari, S. Al-Maadeed, A. Bouridane, I. M. Talaat, R. Hamoudi, Towards improved breast cancer detection via multi-modal fusion and dimensionality adjustment, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Reports (2024) 100019

    2024

  5. [11]

    Hussain, M

    S. Hussain, M. Ali, U. Naseem, F. Nezhadmoghadam, M. A. Jatoi, T. A. Gulliver, J. G. Tamez-Peña, Breast cancer risk prediction using machine learning: a systematic review, Frontiers in Oncology 14 (2024) 1343627. 41

    2024

  6. [12]

    O. S. El Nahhas, M. van Treeck, G. Wölflein, M. Unger, M. Ligero, T. Lenz, S. J. Wagner, K. J. Hewitt, F. Khader, S. Foersch, et al., From whole-slide image to biomarker prediction: end-to-end weakly su- pervised deep learning in computational pathology, Nature Protocols (2024) 1–24

    2024

  7. [13]

    Shmatko, N

    A. Shmatko, N. Ghaffari Laleh, M. Gerstung, J. N. Kather, Artificial intelligence in histopathology: enhancing cancer research and clinical oncology, Nature cancer 3 (9) (2022) 1026–1038

    2022

  8. [14]

    Jiang, L

    B. Jiang, L. Bao, S. He, X. Chen, Z. Jin, Y. Ye, Deep learning applica- tions in breast cancer histopathological imaging: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis, Breast Cancer Research 26 (1) (2024) 137

    2024

  9. [15]

    Dhillon, A

    A. Dhillon, A. Singh, V. K. Bhalla, A systematic review on biomarker identification for cancer diagnosis and prognosis in multi-omics: from computational needs to machine learning and deep learning, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 30 (2) (2023) 917–949

    2023

  10. [16]

    Z. Li, M. M. Bui, L. Pantanowitz, Clinical tissue biomarker digital image analysis: A review of current applications, Human Pathology Reports 28 (2022) 300633

    2022

  11. [17]

    Dunenova, Z

    G. Dunenova, Z. Kalmataeva, D. Kaidarova, N. Dauletbaev, Y. Semen- ova, M. Mansurova, A. Grjibovski, F. Kassymbekova, A. Sarsembayev, D. Semenov, et al., The performance and clinical applicability of her2 digital image analysis in breast cancer: A systematic review, Cancers 16...

    2024

  12. [18]

    Echle, N

    A. Echle, N. T. Rindtorff, T. J. Brinker, T. Luedde, A. T. Pearson, J. N. Kather, Deep learning in cancer pathology: a new generation of clinical biomarkers, British journal of cancer 124 (4) (2021) 686–696

    2021

  13. [19]

    H. D. Couture, Deep learning-based prediction of molecular tumor biomarkers from h&e: a practical review, Journal of Personalized Medicine 12 (12) (2022) 2022

    2022

  14. [20]

    E. E. J. Iweala, D. N. Amuji, F. C. Nnaji, Protein biomarkers for diag- nosis of breast cancer, Scientific African 25 (2024) e02308. 42

    2024

  15. [21]

    Agersborg, C

    S. Agersborg, C. Mixon, T. Nguyen, S. Aithal, S. Sudarsanam, F. Blocker, L. Weiss, R. Gasparini, S. Jiang, W. Chen, et al., Im- munohistochemistry and alternative fish testing in breast cancer with her2 equivocal amplification, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 170 (2018) 321–328

    2018

  16. [22]

    A. G. Lashen, M. S. Toss, S. F. Ghannam, S. Makhlouf, A. Green, N. P. Mongan, E. Rakha, Expression, assessment and significance of ki67expressioninbreastcancer: anupdate, Journalofclinicalpathology 76 (6) (2023) 357–364

    2023

  17. [23]

    Q. Tang, Y. Chen, X. Li, S. Long, Y. Shi, Y. Yu, W. Wu, L. Han, S. Wang, The role of pd-1/pd-l1 and application of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in human cancers, Frontiers in immunology 13 (2022) 964442

    2022

  18. [24]

    Vranic, Z

    S. Vranic, Z. Gatalica, Pd-l1 testing by immunohistochemistry in immuno-oncology, Biomolecules and Biomedicine 23 (1) (2023) 15

    2023

  19. [25]

    Anand, N

    D. Anand, N. C. Kurian, S. Dhage, N. Kumar, S. Rane, P. H. Gann, A. Sethi, Deep learning to estimate human epidermal growth factor re- ceptor 2 status from hematoxylin and eosin-stained breast tissue images, Journal of pathology informatics 11 (1) (2020) 19

    2020

  20. [27]

    J. N. Kather, L. R. Heij, H. I. Grabsch, C. Loeffler, A. Echle, H. S. Muti, J. Krause, J. M. Niehues, K. A. Sommer, P. Bankhead, et al., Pan-cancer image-based detection of clinically actionable genetic alterations, Nature cancer 1 (8) (2020) 789–799

    2020

  21. [28]

    S. P. Oliveira, J. Ribeiro Pinto, T. Gonçalves, R. Canas-Marques, M.-J. Cardoso, H. P. Oliveira, J. S. Cardoso, Weakly-supervised classification ofher2expressioninbreastcancerhaematoxylinandeosinstainedslides, Applied Sciences 10 (14) (2020) 4728

    2020

  22. [29]

    N. Naik, A. Madani, A. Esteva, N. S. Keskar, M. F. Press, D. Ruderman, D. B. Agus, R. Socher, Deep learning-enabled breast cancer hormonal receptor status determination from base-level h&e stains, Nature com- munications 11 (1) (2020) 5727. 43

    2020

  23. [30]

    C. Yan, J. Sun, Y. Guan, J. Feng, H. Liu, J. Liu, Phiher2: phenotype- informed weakly supervised model for her2 status prediction from patho- logical images, Bioinformatics 40 (Supplement_1) (2024) i79–i90

    2024

  24. [31]

    Farahmand, A

    S. Farahmand, A. I. Fernandez, F. S. Ahmed, D. L. Rimm, J. H. Chuang, E. Reisenbichler, K. Zarringhalam, Deep learning trained on hematoxylin and eosin tumor region of interest predicts her2 status and trastuzumabtreatmentresponseinher2+breastcancer, ModernPathol- ogy 35 (1) (...

    2022

  25. [32]

    Gamble, R

    P. Gamble, R. Jaroensri, H. Wang, F. Tan, M. Moran, T. Brown, I. Flament-Auvigne, E. A. Rakha, M. Toss, D. J. Dabbs, et al., De- termining breast cancer biomarker status and associated morphological features using deep learning, Communications medicine 1 (1) (2021) 14

    2021

  26. [33]

    Shamai, A

    G. Shamai, A. Livne, A. Polónia, E. Sabo, A. Cretu, G. Bar-Sela, R. Kimmel, Deep learning-based image analysis predicts pd-l1 status from h&e-stained histopathology images in breast cancer, Nature Com- munications 13 (1) (2022) 6753

    2022

  27. [34]

    Weitz, B

    P. Weitz, B. Acs, J. Hartman, M. Rantalainen, Prediction of ki67 scores from h&e stained breast cancer sections using convolutional neural net- works, in: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, 2021

    2021

  28. [35]

    W. Lu, M. Toss, M. Dawood, E. Rakha, N. Rajpoot, F. Minhas, Slide- graph+: Whole slide image level graphs to predict her2 status in breast cancer, Medical Image Analysis 80 (2022) 102486

    2022

  29. [36]

    Arslan, X

    S. Arslan, X. Li, J. Schmidt, J. Hense, A. Geraldes, C. Bass, K. Brown, A. Marcia, T. Dewhirst, P. Pandya, et al., Evaluation of a predictive method for the h&e-based molecular profiling of breast cancer with deep learning, bioRxiv (2022) 2022–01

    2022

  30. [37]

    Bychkov, N

    D. Bychkov, N. Linder, A. Tiulpin, H. Kücükel, M. Lundin, S. Nordling, H. Sihto, J. Isola, T. Lehtimäki, P.-L. Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, et al., Deep learning identifies morphological features in breast cancer predictive of cancer erbb2 status and trastuzumab treatment efficacy, Sc...

    2021

  31. [38]

    Akbarnejad, N

    A. Akbarnejad, N. Ray, P. J. Barnes, G. Bigras, Predicting ki67, er, pr, and her2 statuses from h&e-stained breast cancer images, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01982 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    K. Bae, Y. S. Jeon, Y. Hwangbo, C. W. Yoo, N. Han, M. Feng, et al., Data-efficient computational pathology platform for faster and cheaper breast cancer subtype identifications: Development of a deep learning model, JMIR cancer 9 (1) (2023) e45547

    2023

  33. [40]

    M. S. H. Shovon, M. J. Islam, M. N. A. K. Nabil, M. M. Molla, A. I. Jony, M. Mridha, Strategies for enhancing the multi-stage classification performances of her2 breast cancer from hematoxylin and eosin images, Diagnostics 12 (11) (2022) 2825

    2022

  34. [41]

    Mridha, M

    M. Mridha, M. K. Morol, M. A. Ali, M. S. H. SHOVON, convoher2: A deep neural network for multi-stage classification of her2 breast cancer, AIUB Journal of Science and Engineering (AJSE) 22 (1) (2023) 53–81

    2023

  35. [42]

    M. S. H. Shovon, J. Shin, M. Mridha, Ihcnet: Advancing multi-stage her2 status detection in breast cancer using interpretable robust trans- fer learning model from ihc images, in: 2023 International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Tech...

    2023

  36. [43]

    M. S. H. Shovon, M. F. Mridha, K. M. Hasib, S. Alfarhood, M. Safran, D. Che, Addressing uncertainty in imbalanced histopathology image classification of her2 breast cancer: An interpretable ensemble approach with threshold filtered single instance evaluation (sie), IEEE Access...

    2023

  37. [44]

    J. Wang, X. Zhu, K. Chen, L. Hao, Y. Liu, Hahnet: a convolutional neu- ral network for her2 status classification of breast cancer, BMC bioin- formatics 24 (1) (2023) 353

    2023

  38. [45]

    Pateel, K

    G. Pateel, K. Senapati, A. K. Pandey, A novel decision level class-wise ensemblemethodindeeplearningforautomaticmulti-classclassification of her2 breast cancer hematoxylin-eosin images, IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  39. [46]

    Rossi, I

    C. Rossi, I. Cicalini, M. C. Cufaro, A. Consalvo, P. Upadhyaya, G. Sala, I. Antonucci, P. Del Boccio, L. Stuppia, V. De Laurenzi, Breast cancer 45 in the era of integrating “omics” approaches, Oncogenesis 11 (1) (2022) 17

    2022

  40. [47]

    X. Chen, T. Zhang, W. Su, Z. Dou, D. Zhao, X. Jin, H. Lei, J. Wang, X. Xie, B. Cheng, et al., Mutant p53 in cancer: from molecular mech- anism to therapeutic modulation, Cell Death & Disease 13 (11) (2022) 974

    2022

  41. [48]

    X. Wang, C. Zou, Y. Zhang, X. Li, C. Wang, F. Ke, J. Chen, W. Wang, D.Wang, X.Xu, etal., Predictionofbrcagenemutationinbreastcancer based on deep learning and histopathology images, Frontiers in Genetics 12 (2021) 661109

    2021

  42. [49]

    Y. Li, X. Xiong, X. Liu, M. Xu, B. Yang, X. Li, Y. Li, B. Lin, B. Xu, Predicting brca mutation and stratifying targeted therapy response us- ing multimodal learning: a multicenter study, Annals of Medicine 56 (1) (2024) 2399759

    2024

  43. [50]

    Tsiknakis, D

    N. Tsiknakis, D. Salgkamis, E. Tzoras, K. Wang, X. Liu, G. Manikis, E. Sifakis, J. Bergh, K. Marias, I. Zerdes, et al., 69p deep learning prog- nostication through prediction of tp53 gene mutation status on breast cancer hematoxylin and eosin slides, ESMO Open 9 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    H. Qu, M. Zhou, Z. Yan, H. Wang, V. K. Rustgi, S. Zhang, O. Gevaert, D. N. Metaxas, Genetic mutation and biological pathway prediction based on whole slide images in breast carcinoma using deep learning, NPJ precision oncology 5 (1) (2021) 87

    2021

  45. [52]

    Y. Fu, A. W. Jung, R. V. Torne, S. Gonzalez, H. Vöhringer, A. Shmatko, L.R.Yates, M.Jimenez-Linan, L.Moore, M.Gerstung, Pan-cancercom- putational histopathology reveals mutations, tumor composition and prognosis, Nature cancer 1 (8) (2020) 800–810

    2020

  46. [53]

    Y. K. Wang, L. Tydlitatova, J. D. Kunz, G. Oakley, R. A. Godrich, M. C. Lee, C. Vanderbilt, R. Yousfi, T. Fuchs, D. S. Klimstra, et al., Screen them all: High-throughput pan-cancer genetic and phenotypic biomarker screening from h \&e whole slide images, arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Tsiknakis, G

    N. Tsiknakis, G. Manikis, E. Tzoras, D. Salgkamis, J. M. Vidal, K. Wang, D. Zaridis, E. Sifakis, I. Zerdes, J. Bergh, et al., Unveiling 46 the power of model-agnostic multiscale analysis for enhancing artificial intelligence models in breast cancer histopathology images, IEEE ...

    2024

  48. [55]

    Arslan, J

    S. Arslan, J. Schmidt, C. Bass, D. Mehrotra, A. Geraldes, S. Singhal, J. Hense, X. Li, P. Raharja-Liu, O. Maiques, et al., A systematic pan- cancer study on deep learning-based prediction of multi-omic biomarkers from routine pathology images, Communications Medicine 4 (1) (2024) 48

    2024

  49. [56]

    Zhao, C.-Y

    S. Zhao, C.-Y. Yan, H. Lv, J.-C. Yang, C. You, Z.-A. Li, D. Ma, Y. Xiao, J. Hu, W.-T. Yang, et al., Deep learning framework for comprehensive molecular and prognostic stratifications of triple-negative breast cancer, Fundamental Research (2022)

    2022

  50. [57]

    Binder, M

    A. Binder, M. Bockmayr, M. Hägele, S. Wienert, D. Heim, K. Hellweg, M. Ishii, A. Stenzinger, A. Hocke, C. Denkert, et al., Morphological and molecular breast cancer profiling through explainable machine learning, Nature Machine Intelligence 3 (4) (2021) 355–366

    2021

  51. [58]

    B. C. Srinivasamurthy, The evolution of gene expression profiling in breast cancer–a narrative review, Journal of Clinical and Scientific Re- search (2022)

    2022

  52. [59]

    P. L. Ståhl, F. Salmén, S. Vickovic, A. Lundmark, J. F. Navarro, J. Mag- nusson, S. Giacomello, M. Asp, J. O. Westholm, M. Huss, et al., Visu- alization and analysis of gene expression in tissue sections by spatial transcriptomics, Science 353 (6294) (2016) 78–82

    2016

  53. [61]

    Zheng, M

    Y. Zheng, M. Pizurica, F. Carrillo-Perez, H. Noor, W. Yao, C. Wohlfart, K. Marchal, A. Vladimirova, O. Gevaert, Digital profiling of cancer tran- scriptomes from histology images with grouped vision attention, bioRxiv (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    D. Jin, S. Liang, A. Shmatko, A. Arnold, D. Horst, T. G. Grünewald, M. Gerstung, X. Bai, Teacher-student collaborated multiple instance 47 learning for pan-cancer pdl1 expression prediction from histopathology slides, Nature Communications 15 (1) (2024) 3063

    2024

  55. [63]

    Şenbabaoğlu, V

    Y. Şenbabaoğlu, V. Prabhakar, A. Khormali, J. Eastham, E. Liu, E. Warner, B. Nabet, M. Srivastava, M. Ballinger, K. Liu, Mosby en- ables multi-omic inference and spatial biomarker discovery from whole slide images, Scientific Reports 14 (1) (2024) 18271

    2024

  56. [64]

    Y. Wang, K. Kartasalo, P. Weitz, B. Acs, M. Valkonen, C. Larsson, P. Ruusuvuori, J. Hartman, M. Rantalainen, Predicting molecular phe- notypes from histopathology images: a transcriptome-wide expression– morphology analysis in breast cancer, Cancer research 81 (19) (2021) 5115–5126

    2021

  57. [65]

    Huang, G

    H. Huang, G. Zhou, X. Liu, L. Deng, C. Wu, D. Zhang, H. Liu, Con- trastive learning-based computational histopathology predict differen- tial expression of cancer driver genes, Briefings in bioinformatics 23 (5) (2022) bbac294

    2022

  58. [66]

    Levy-Jurgenson, X

    A. Levy-Jurgenson, X. Tekpli, V. N. Kristensen, Z. Yakhini, Spatial transcriptomics inferred from pathology whole-slide images links tumor heterogeneity to survival in breast and lung cancer, Scientific reports 10 (1) (2020) 18802

    2020

  59. [67]

    B. He, L. Bergenstråhle, L. Stenbeck, A. Abid, A. Andersson, Å. Borg, J. Maaskola, J. Lundeberg, J. Zou, Integrating spatial gene expression and breast tumour morphology via deep learning, Nature biomedical engineering 4 (8) (2020) 827–834

    2020

  60. [68]

    M. M. Rahaman, E. K. Millar, E. Meijering, Breast cancer histopathol- ogy image-based gene expression prediction using spatial transcrip- tomics data and deep learning, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2023) 13604

    2023

  61. [69]

    Monjo, M

    T. Monjo, M. Koido, S. Nagasawa, Y. Suzuki, Y. Kamatani, Efficient prediction of a spatial transcriptomics profile better characterizes breast cancer tissue sections without costly experimentation, Scientific reports 12 (1) (2022) 4133

    2022

  62. [70]

    M.Pang, K.Su, M.Li, Leveraginginformationinspatialtranscriptomics to predict super-resolution gene expression from histology images in tu- mors, BioRxiv (2021) 2021–11. 48

    2021

  63. [71]

    Y. Jia, J. Liu, L. Chen, T. Zhao, Y. Wang, Thitogene: a deep learning method for predicting spatial transcriptomics from histological images, Briefings in Bioinformatics 25 (1) (2024) bbad464

    2024

  64. [72]

    Y. Zhao, E. Alizadeh, Y. Liu, M. Xu, J. M. Mahoney, S. Li, Inferring single-cellspatialgeneexpressionwithtissuemorphologyviaexplainable deep learning, bioRxiv (2024) 2024–06

    2024

  65. [73]

    R. K. Mondol, E. K. Millar, P. H. Graham, L. Browne, A. Sowmya, E. Meijering, hist2rna: an efficient deep learning architecture to pre- dict gene expression from breast cancer histopathology images, Cancers 15 (9) (2023) 2569

    2023

  66. [74]

    Y.Zeng, Z.Wei, W.Yu, R.Yin, Y.Yuan, B.Li, Z.Tang, Y.Lu, Y.Yang, Spatial transcriptomics prediction from histology jointly through trans- former and graph neural networks, Briefings in Bioinformatics 23 (5) (2022) bbac297

    2022

  67. [75]

    M. I. Jaber, B. Song, C. Taylor, C. J. Vaske, S. C. Benz, S. Rabizadeh, P. Soon-Shiong, C. W. Szeto, A deep learning image-based intrinsic molecularsubtypeclassifierofbreasttumorsrevealstumorheterogeneity that may affect survival, Breast Cancer Research 22 (2020) 1–10

    2020

  68. [76]

    Liu, W.-D

    H. Liu, W.-D. Xu, Z.-H. Shang, X.-D. Wang, H.-Y. Zhou, K.-W. Ma, H. Zhou, J.-L. Qi, J.-R. Jiang, L.-L. Tan, et al., Breast cancer molecu- lar subtype prediction on pathological images with discriminative patch selection and multi-instance learning, Frontiers in Oncology 12 (20...

    2022

  69. [77]

    Abbasi-Sureshjani, A

    S. Abbasi-Sureshjani, A. Yüce, S. Schönenberger, M. Skujevskis, U. Schalles, F. Gaire, K. Korski, Molecular subtype prediction for breast cancer using h&e specialized backbone, in: MICCAI Workshop on Com- putational Pathology, PMLR, 2021, pp. 1–9

    2021

  70. [78]

    Huang, Z

    Y. Huang, Z. Yao, L. Li, R. Mao, W. Huang, Z. Hu, Y. Hu, Y. Wang, R. Guo, X. Tang, et al., Deep learning radiopathomics based on pre- operative us images and biopsy whole slide images can distinguish be- tween luminal and non-luminal tumors in early-stage breast cancers, EBioM...

    2023

  71. [79]

    W. Jang, J. Lee, K. H. Park, A. Kim, S. H. Lee, S. Ahn, Molecular classification of breast cancer using weakly supervised learning, Cancer Research and Treatment (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    N. N. Phan, C.-C. Huang, L.-M. Tseng, E. Y. Chuang, Predicting breast cancer gene expression signature by applying deep convolutional neural networks from unannotated pathological images, Frontiers in oncology 11 (2021) 769447

    2021

  73. [81]

    Y. Chen, J. Liu, L. Wang, P. Jiang, B. Pang, D. Cao, Predicting breast cancer molecular subtypes from h &e-stained histopathological images using a spatial-transcriptomics-based patch filter, Multimedia Tools and Applications (2024) 1–19

    2024

  74. [82]

    Tafavvoghi, A

    M. Tafavvoghi, A. Sildnes, M. Rakaee, N. Shvetsov, L. A. Bongo, L.- T. R. Busund, K. Møllersen, Deep learning-based classification of breast cancer molecular subtypes from h&e whole-slide images, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09053 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    M. Pu, K. Messer, S. R. Davies, T. L. Vickery, E. Pittman, B. A. Parker, M. J. Ellis, S. W. Flatt, C. R. Marinac, S. H. Nelson, et al., based pam50 signature and long-term breast cancer survival, Breast cancer research and treatment 179 (2020) 197–206

    2020

  76. [84]

    H. Liu, X. Xie, B. Wang, Deep learning infers clinically relevant protein levels and drug response in breast cancer from unannotated pathology images, NPJ Breast Cancer 10 (1) (2024) 18

    2024

  77. [85]

    Conde-Sousa, J

    E. Conde-Sousa, J. Vale, M. Feng, K. Xu, Y. Wang, V. Della Mea, D. La Barbera, E. Montahaei, M. Baghshah, A. Turzynski, et al., Herohe challenge: predicting her2 status in breast cancer from hematoxylin– eosin whole-slide imaging, Journal of Imaging 8 (8) (2022) 213

    2022

  78. [86]

    S. Liu, C. Zhu, F. Xu, X. Jia, Z. Shi, M. Jin, Bci: Breast cancer im- munohistochemical image generation through pyramid pix2pix, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 1815–1824

    2022

  79. [87]

    Weitz, M

    P. Weitz, M. Valkonen, L. Solorzano, C. Carr, K. Kartasalo, C. Boissin, S. Koivukoski, A. Kuusela, D. Rasic, Y. Feng, et al., A multi-stain breast 50 cancer histological whole-slide-image data set from routine diagnostics, Scientific Data 10 (1) (2023) 562

    2023

  80. [88]

    Yap, Outcomes in breast cancer—does ethnicity matter?, ESMO open 8 (3) (2023) 101564

    Y.-S. Yap, Outcomes in breast cancer—does ethnicity matter?, ESMO open 8 (3) (2023) 101564

    2023

  81. [89]

    H. D. Couture, L. A. Williams, J. Geradts, S. J. Nyante, E. N. Butler, J. Marron, C. M. Perou, M. A. Troester, M. Niethammer, Image analysis with deep learning to predict breast cancer grade, er status, histologic subtype, and intrinsic subtype, NPJ breast cancer 4 (1) (2018) 30

    2018

  82. [90]

    Abdullakutty, Y

    F. Abdullakutty, Y. Akbari, S. Al-Maadeed, A. Bouridane, I. M. Talaat, R. Hamoudi, Histopathology in focus: a review on explainable multi- modal approaches for breast cancer diagnosis, Frontiers in Medicine 11 (2024) 1450103

    2024

  83. [91]

    Y. Hou, H. Nitta, Z. Li, Her2 intratumoral heterogeneity in breast can- cer, an evolving concept, Cancers 15 (10) (2023) 2664. 51

    2023

Pith tools

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