Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 60 references

From Histopathology Images to Cell Clouds: Learning Slide Representations with Hierarchical Cell Transformer

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cell coordinates and types alone can drive state-of-the-art survival and staging predictions from whole-slide images.

desk verdict A serious cell-cloud dataset and architecture worth engaging, but the abstract overstates the results and the unvalidated cell-level labels are the load-bearing risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16715 v1 pith:ONPVHDQT submitted 2024-12-21 cs.CV cs.AI

Zijiang Yang , Zhongwei Qiu , Tiancheng Lin , Hanqing Chao , Wanxing Chang , Yelin Yang , Yunshuo Zhang , Wenpei Jiao
show 8 more authors
Yixuan Shen Wenbin Liu Dongmei Fu Dakai Jin Ke Yan Le Lu Hui Jiang Yun Bian
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords wholeslideimageanalysiscellcloudspatialdistributionsurvivalpredictioncancerstagingcell-levelannotationshierarchicaltransformercomputationalpathology
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 sets out to show that the spatial arrangement of cells alone—their coordinates and basic type labels—carries enough information to drive clinical predictions from histopathology slides. To test this, the authors assemble a dataset of more than five billion cell-level annotations across nearly 7,000 whole-slide images of 11 cancers, and pair it with a model (CCFormer) that treats each slide as a 'cell cloud' and learns hierarchical spatial structure. On survival prediction and cancer staging, the cell-cloud model reaches or beats patch-based methods on most cancer types, suggesting that cell spatial distribution is a viable, cheaper alternative to image-feature pipelines. The paper also shows that simple cell-counting scores stratify patients by survival risk. A sympathetic reader would take the core claim as: cell clouds are an effective slide representation, and the new dataset makes direct cell-level analysis possible.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. First, Neighboring Information Embedding (NIE) computes, for every cell, local and global density features: the fraction of each cell type appearing within successive radial shells around the cell, normalized locally and globally. This turns each cell's identity into a short vector describing its neighborhood mix, which can distinguish cells of the same type in different microenvironments. Second, Hierarchical Spatial Perception (HSP) repeatedly groups cells into sub-regions via farthest-point sampling, filters each group with a semantic-spatial similarity score, applies vector attention with relative coordinates to update features, and aggregates group-wise; repeating this level by level builds a slide-level representation from local clusters upward. The whole pipeline is trained end-to-end on survival and staging objectives.

What would settle it

Have pathologists annotate every cell (or a dense grid of patches) on a random sample of, say, 50 whole-slide images from the dataset; if cell-type agreement with the pipeline is substantially below the reported 92.7% patch-level tumor/normal agreement, or if errors concentrate in specific cell types or tissue regions, the survival and staging results could be artifacts of annotation noise. A quicker check: train CCFormer on the dataset with cell-type labels randomly permuted within each slide while keeping coordinates fixed; if the C-Index does not drop toward chance, the model is exploiting label noise rather than true spatial composition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that modeling the spatial distribution of cells per whole-slide image—rather than the pixel appearance of patches—can already achieve state-of-the-art performance on survival prediction and cancer staging. Concretely, CCFormer obtains the highest C-Index on 6 of 10 cancer types and competitive results on the rest, and large F1 gains on staging tasks; combining it with simple patch features improves results further. The underlying discovery is that a hierarchical treatment of cell clouds—encoding each cell's local neighborhood statistics and then aggregating spatially up the slide scale—captures clinically meaningful structure that patch-level and graph-of-patch methods miss. The authors further claim that clinical indicators computed purely by counting cell types within boxes (CPS and MCPS) separate high- from low-risk patients with small p-values, so the cell-level annotations themselves carry prognostic value.

Load-bearing premise

The cell-level labels and coordinates in the dataset, produced by an automated detection pipeline refined with foundation-model votes, are accurate enough that measured clinical performance reflects real spatial biology rather than systematic annotation errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If cell clouds alone suffice for state-of-the-art performance on most cancers, heavy patch-level feature extraction may be bypassed for those downstream tasks.
  • Combining cell-cloud features with a simple patch mean-pool improves C-Index on all evaluated cancer types except where patch features are weak, implying the two signals are complementary.
  • Cell-counting scores derived from the dataset can serve as interpretable, model-free clinical indicators for survival stratification.
  • The dataset enables evaluating cell spatial distributions across entire slides, which existing patch-level cell datasets cannot support.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the signal is genuinely semantic: if randomizing cell-type labels while keeping coordinates preserves most of the C-Index, the model would be reading density rather than biology.
  • The reported 92.7% agreement validates only patch-level tumor-versus-normal status; the finer three-type labels (neoplastic, inflammatory, other) that drive the spatial features remain unvalidated at cell level.
  • If annotation errors are spatially correlated—for example, concentrated in dense or necrotic regions—the clinical associations could be inflated; synthetic perturbation of coordinates and labels could bound this effect.
  • Future work could extend the hierarchy to fine-grained cell subclasses where the paper itself notes coarse types limit performance on kidney and bladder cancers.
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 paper constructs WSI-Cell5B, a large-scale dataset of 6,998 TCGA WSIs from 11 cancer types with over 5 billion cell annotations (coordinates and three coarse cell types), produced by a PanNuke-pretrained detector refined through a weakly supervised label refinement procedure using foundation models. It also proposes CCFormer, a hierarchical cell-cloud transformer: NIE embeds local and global neighborhood density features per cell, and HSP groups cells by farthest-point sampling and applies semantic-spatial filtering and vector attention in a bottom-up hierarchy. The model is evaluated for survival prediction (C-Index, 5-fold CV, 10 cancer types) and cancer staging (Macro-F1, 2 cancer types) against MIL, graph, and point-cloud baselines, and the dataset is used to construct CPS/MCPS survival-risk metrics with Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Significance. The scale of the proposed dataset is a genuine contribution: to the best of my knowledge, it is the first WSI-level dataset with cell-level annotations linked to clinical endpoints, covering 6,998 WSIs and more than 5 billion cells. The CCFormer architecture is a reasonable adaptation of point-cloud learning to histopathology, and the use of a consistent 5-fold CV protocol across all baselines is a strength. If the cell annotations are reliable, the resource would enable many downstream analyses. However, the paper's headline claim that cell spatial distribution alone achieves SOTA is not supported by the reported numbers, and the lack of direct per-cell validation weakens confidence in the biological interpretation of the results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §5.2, Table 1] The abstract states that 'learning from cell spatial distribution alone can already achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, i.e., CCFormer strongly outperforms other competing methods.' Table 1 does not support this. CCFormer alone achieves the highest C-Index in 6 of 10 cancer types (BLCA, BRCA, COADREAD, LUAD, PAAD, STAD), but on KIRC ABMIL is substantially better (0.712 vs 0.658), on UCEC ABMIL is better (0.735 vs 0.693), on LUSC WiKG is better (0.635 vs 0.633), and on HNSC PointNet is marginally better (0.650 vs 0.649). Moreover, the combined model CCFormer+MeanPool(Patch) beats CCFormer alone on all cancer types except LUSC, so the best results generally require appearance features in addition to cell clouds. The text in §5.2 and Appendix A.4 itself concedes inferior performance on some cancer types. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to reflect the actual pattern, and report whether the C-Index differences are statistically significant rather than relying on fold means whose standard deviations overlap.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2] The central claim that CCFormer succeeds by modeling cell spatial distribution presupposes that the cell coordinates and type labels in WSI-Cell5B are accurate. The only quantitative validation is patch-level: Appendix A.2 reports 92.7% agreement between patch-level tumor/normal labels (derived from a 25% neoplastic-cell threshold) and pathologist votes. A detector that systematically mislabels cell types within tumor and normal patches could still achieve this patch-level agreement. The WSLR procedure (Section 3.1) selects credible patches by agreement between foundation-model votes and the detector's own aggregate cell assessment, then fine-tunes the detector on those patches; this self-training loop can reinforce existing biases rather than correct them. Since NIE (Section 4.1) and HSP (Section 4.2) consume the cell-type counts and one-hot encodings, systematic cell-type errors would be learned as spatial biology. To support the paper's conclusions, please provide per-cell validation (e.g., on a small set of manually annotated regions) with per-class precision/recall and coordinate error, and analyze the effect of label noise on the key survival/staging results.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Appendix A.5.2] The CPS/MCPS results are presented as evidence that WSI-Cell5B can directly yield clinical indicators. However, the weight vector alpha is chosen per cancer type after the fact (A.5.2), the MCPS boxes are randomly sampled without reporting the distribution of p-values across random seeds or box draws, and no multiple-testing correction or held-out validation is applied. The reported p-value improvements (e.g., HNSC from 8.04e-2 to 1.28e-2) are therefore descriptive rather than confirmatory. Please either pre-specify the metric construction, report repeatability/variance of MCPS, or recast these analyses as exploratory.
  4. [Section 5.1, Table 1, and A.5.3] The survival comparisons report mean C-Index over 5 folds with standard deviations, but no paired significance tests are reported. Many of the claimed advantages are within one standard deviation of the best baseline (e.g., HNSC: 0.649±0.052 vs PointNet 0.650±0.032; LUAD: 0.657±0.012 vs PointNet++ 0.645±0.020). In addition, the method has several tuned hyperparameters (lambda_r, N_d, lambda_sim, N_k, L, beta), and A.5.3 states that lambda_sim, learning rate, and dropout are adjusted per cancer; no selection protocol or sensitivity analysis is reported. This makes it difficult to assess whether the reported gains reflect the proposed architecture rather than per-dataset tuning. Please add significance testing and a sensitivity analysis for the key hyperparameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3 and Algorithm 1] Table 3 has a typo in the header 'C-Idex' (should be 'C-Index'), and Algorithm 1 begins with 'IUPUT' (should be 'INPUT').
  2. [Section 3.2] In the second paragraph, 'SPC fails to distinguish patients of HNSC' should read 'CPS fails...'.
  3. [Appendix A.5.2] The alpha values are formatted inconsistently (e.g., [0.0, 0.0, 1.0] vs [0.33, 0.33, 0.33]); please also state explicitly how these values were selected and whether the selection was made before or after seeing the survival data.
  4. [General] The paper does not state where WSI-Cell5B will be made available. For a dataset contribution, please include an availability statement with a URL or a clear release plan.
  5. [Section 4.2] There is a duplicated word in 'spatial spatial distribution' in the description of HSP; please fix the typo.
  6. [Appendix A.5.3] The combination weight beta is defined for CCFormer+MeanPool(Patch), but no value or selection procedure for beta is given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the paper's derivation chain is self-contained and no claim reduces by construction to a fitted value.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from WSI-Cell5B construction, through the WSLR annotation pipeline, to the CCFormer model and the survival/staging benchmarks. The cell-level labels come from an external detector (DPA-P2PNet) refined via foundation-model agreement; they are not defined in terms of the downstream survival or staging labels, and the survival/staging experiments use standard TCGA 5-fold cross-validation. The NIE and HSP features are computed from cell coordinates and types without using clinical endpoints, and the ablations are ordinary controlled comparisons. The clinical CPS/MCPS analysis is a descriptive metric evaluation: the cancer-specific alpha weights are stated as chosen based on cancer type rather than as fitted to the survival endpoint, and although this selection is not formally audited, there is no equation-level reduction of the Kaplan-Meier stratification to an outcome-fitted parameter. The WSLR self-training loop is a data-quality risk because cell-level accuracy is not directly validated, but it is not circularity of the paper's derivation: the loop does not consume the endpoint labels being predicted, and the downstream evaluation remains an external benchmark. I found no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem; every central claim has independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on a cascade of hand-set hyperparameters and domain assumptions about cell annotation quality and the sufficiency of three cell types. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_r (neighborhood radius scale factor) = 4
    Set in Appendix A.5.3; controls the largest local neighborhood radius rmax = lambda_r * dmean. The result quality depends on this choice.
  • N_d (number of radius segments) = 3
    Discrete number of radii in NIE; set in Appendix A.5.3.
  • lambda_sim (semantic-spatial filter threshold) = 0.5 default, adjusted per cancer
    Determines which cells are discarded in each group. The paper states lambda_sim is adjusted for each cancer (Appendix A.5.3), which is a per-dataset fit.
  • alpha (CPS/MCPS weight vector) = e.g., [0.33,0.33,0.33] for HNSC, [0.25,0.5,0.25] for KIRC, [0,0,1] for PAAD
    Hand-set per cancer in Appendix A.5.2; these weights are chosen to make the survival stratification significant, which is a form of fitting to the outcome.
  • N_box (number of random boxes in MCPS) = 20
    Random box count in the MCPS metric; box sizes are random between 0.6 and 1.0 of the cell cloud, and no variance over the random draws is reported.
  • beta (appearance feature weight in combination) = Not given
    Used to combine CCFormer and MeanPool(Patch) features; its value is not reported, and the combination model freezes CCFormer, which may limit optimization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The collection of cells in a WSI can be treated as a point cloud and contains sufficient information for survival and staging.
    Section 4 introduction; this is the core framing of the paper, supported by clinical citations but not proven.
  • domain assumption Three coarse cell types (neoplastic, inflammatory, other) are sufficient to capture clinically relevant spatial patterns.
    Used throughout; Appendix A.4 admits this limits performance on KIRC and BLCA, where fine-grained subtypes matter.
  • domain assumption The automated cell annotations are accurate enough for the downstream tasks.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.2; only patch-level tumor/normal agreement (92.7%) is reported, not cell-level precision or recall.
  • domain assumption Farthest Point Sampling and grid downsampling preserve the spatial distribution information needed for WSI-level prediction.
    Appendix A.5.1; all experiments use downsampled cell clouds, but no sensitivity analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Histopathology Images to Cell Clouds: Learning Slide Representations with Hierarchical Cell Transformer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONPVHDQT

@misc{pith2026241216715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Histopathology Images to Cell Clouds: Learning Slide Representations with Hierarchical Cell Transformer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONPVHDQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16715}
}
read the original abstract

It is clinically crucial and potentially very beneficial to be able to analyze and model directly the spatial distributions of cells in histopathology whole slide images (WSI). However, most existing WSI datasets lack cell-level annotations, owing to the extremely high cost over giga-pixel images. Thus, it remains an open question whether deep learning models can directly and effectively analyze WSIs from the semantic aspect of cell distributions. In this work, we construct a large-scale WSI dataset with more than 5 billion cell-level annotations, termed WSI-Cell5B, and a novel hierarchical Cell Cloud Transformer (CCFormer) to tackle these challenges. WSI-Cell5B is based on 6,998 WSIs of 11 cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas Program, and all WSIs are annotated per cell by coordinates and types. To the best of our knowledge, WSI-Cell5B is the first WSI-level large-scale dataset integrating cell-level annotations. On the other hand, CCFormer formulates the collection of cells in each WSI as a cell cloud and models cell spatial distribution. Specifically, Neighboring Information Embedding (NIE) is proposed to characterize the distribution of cells within the neighborhood of each cell, and a novel Hierarchical Spatial Perception (HSP) module is proposed to learn the spatial relationship among cells in a bottom-up manner. The clinical analysis indicates that WSI-Cell5B can be used to design clinical evaluation metrics based on counting cells that effectively assess the survival risk of patients. Extensive experiments on survival prediction and cancer staging show that learning from cell spatial distribution alone can already achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, i.e., CCFormer strongly outperforms other competing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of histopathology datasets on the num￾ber of cells and WSIs. Our proposed WSI-Cell5B is the first WSI￾level large-scale dataset integrating cell-level annotations, while existing datasets lack either cell-level annotations or WSIs for clin￾ical endpoints. 1. Introduction Analyzing histopathology whole slide images (WSIs) presents a significant challenge in computational pathol￾ogy. It requires managing gi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of WSI-Cell5B. (a) Summary of WSIs within WSI-Cell5B. WSI-Cell5B includes 6,998 WSIs on 11 types of cancers across 10 organs. (b) The annotation workflow. A novel Weakly Supervised Label Refinement based on foundation models is proposed to reduce the costs of label refinement. (c) Summary of cells. WSI-Cell5B consists of over 5 billion cell-level annotations of three cell types. ship among patches. HEAT [3]… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier analyses on HNSC, KIRC and PAAD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The pipeline and illustration of CCFormer. Given the cell point (coordinate and type) within the cell cloud, Neighboring Information Embedding supplements the statistical characteristics of its neighboring cells. Hierarchical Spatial Perception further progres￾sively p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Toy example of NIE. A toy point set containing three categories is generated. After extracting features via NIE, we per￾formed K-Means clustering. The results indicate that features de￾rived from NIE can effectively differentiate points at different lo￾cations (boundar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of cancer staging with SOTA methods on (a) BLCA and (b) COADREAD in Macro-F1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of clustering based on Fld and Fgd. Semantic Filter Spatial Filter Semantic-Spatial Aware Filter Case I Case II Candidate region Filtered region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the semantic-spatial aware filter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Some cases of patches. The first row shows cases where WSI-Cell5B annotations are consistent with the diagnoses of pathologists. In contrast, the second row shows cases where WSI-Cell5B annotations differ from the diagnoses of pathologists. Pathologists and WSI-Cell5B…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Peter Bandi, Oscar Geessink, Quirine Manson, Mar- cory 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 pa- tient level: the camelyon17 challenge. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 38(2):550–5...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Artifi- cial intelligence for diagnosis and gleason grading of prostate cancer: the panda challenge

    Wouter Bulten, Kimmo Kartasalo, Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen, Peter Str ¨om, Hans Pinckaers, Kunal Nagpal, Yuannan Cai, David F Steiner, Hester Van Boven, Robert Vink, et al. Artifi- cial intelligence for diagnosis and gleason grading of prostate cancer: the panda challenge. Nature medicine, 28(1):154– 163, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Histopathology whole slide image anal- ysis with heterogeneous graph representation learning

    Tsai Hor Chan, Fernando Julio Cendra, Lan Ma, Guosheng Yin, and Lequan Yu. Histopathology whole slide image anal- ysis with heterogeneous graph representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 15661–15670, 2023. 2, 3, 7

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Whole slide images are 2d point clouds: Context-aware survival prediction using patch-based graph convolutional networks

    Richard J Chen, Ming Y Lu, Muhammad Shaban, Chengkuan Chen, Tiffany Y Chen, Drew FK Williamson, and Faisal Mahmood. Whole slide images are 2d point clouds: Context-aware survival prediction using patch-based graph convolutional networks. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2021 , pages 339–349. Springer International Pub...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning

    Richard J Chen, Chengkuan Chen, Yicong Li, Tiffany Y Chen, Andrew D Trister, Rahul G Krishnan, and Faisal Mahmood. Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16144–16155, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology

    Richard J Chen, Tong Ding, Ming Y Lu, Drew FK Williamson, Guillaume Jaume, Andrew H Song, Bowen Chen, Andrew Zhang, Daniel Shao, Muhammad Shaban, et al. Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology. Nature Medicine, 30(3):850–862,

  7. [7]

    Largekernel3d: Scaling up kernels in 3d sparse cnns

    Yukang Chen, Jianhui Liu, Xiangyu Zhang, Xiaojuan Qi, and Jiaya Jia. Largekernel3d: Scaling up kernels in 3d sparse cnns. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 13488–13498,

  8. [8]

    4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3075–3084,

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Spatial architecture and arrangement of tumor-infiltrating lympho- cytes for predicting likelihood of recurrence in early-stage non–small cell lung cancer

    Germ ´an Corredor, Xiangxue Wang, Yu Zhou, Cheng Lu, Pingfu Fu, Konstantinos Syrigos, David L Rimm, Michael Yang, Eduardo Romero, Kurt A Schalper, et al. Spatial architecture and arrangement of tumor-infiltrating lympho- cytes for predicting likelihood of recurrence in early-s...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner

    Angela Dai, Angel X. Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Hal- ber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, 2017. 10

    2017

  3. [11]

    Bladder cancer

    Lars Dyrskjøt, Donna E Hansel, Jason A Efstathiou, Mar- garet A Knowles, Matthew D Galsky, Jeremy Teoh, and Dan Theodorescu. Bladder cancer. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 9(1):58, 2023. 9

    2023

  4. [12]

    An outcome pre- diction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the ssign score

    IGOR Frank, Michael L Blute, John C Cheville, Christine M Lohse, Amy L Weaver, and Horst Zincke. An outcome pre- diction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the ssign score. Th...

    2002

  5. [13]

    Pan- nuke dataset extension, insights and baselines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10778, 2020

    Jevgenij Gamper, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Ksenija Benes, Simon Graham, Mostafa Jahanifar, Syed Ali Khurram, Ayesha Azam, Katherine Hewitt, and Nasir Rajpoot. Pan- nuke dataset extension, insights and baselines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10778, 2020. 2, 3, 10

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    3d semantic segmentation with submani- fold sparse convolutional networks

    Benjamin Graham, Martin Engelcke, and Laurens Van Der Maaten. 3d semantic segmentation with submani- fold sparse convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 9224–9232, 2018. 3

    2018

  7. [15]

    Hover-net: Simultaneous segmentation and classi- fication of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images

    Simon Graham, Quoc Dang Vu, Shan E Ahmed Raza, Ayesha Azam, Yee Wah Tsang, Jin Tae Kwak, and Nasir Rajpoot. Hover-net: Simultaneous segmentation and classi- fication of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images. Medical image analysis, 58:101563, 2019. 2

    2019

  8. [16]

    Lizard: A large-scale dataset for colonic nuclear instance segmentation and classification

    Simon Graham, Mostafa Jahanifar, Ayesha Azam, Mo- hammed Nimir, Yee-Wah Tsang, Katherine Dodd, Emily Hero, Harvir Sahota, Atisha Tank, Ksenija Benes, et al. Lizard: A large-scale dataset for colonic nuclear instance segmentation and classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/C...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Toward a shared vision for cancer genomic data

    Robert L Grossman, Allison P Heath, Vincent Ferretti, Harold E Varmus, Douglas R Lowy, Warren A Kibbe, and Louis M Staudt. Toward a shared vision for cancer genomic data. New England Journal of Medicine , 375(12):1109– 1112, 2016. 3

    2016

  10. [18]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 2

    2016

  11. [19]

    Quilt-1m: One million image-text pairs for histopathology

    Wisdom Ikezogwo, Saygin Seyfioglu, Fatemeh Ghezloo, Dylan Geva, Fatwir Sheikh Mohammed, Pavan Kumar Anand, Ranjay Krishna, and Linda Shapiro. Quilt-1m: One million image-text pairs for histopathology. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 2024. 4

    2024

  12. [20]

    Attention-based deep multiple instance learning

    Maximilian Ilse, Jakub Tomczak, and Max Welling. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In Inter- national conference on machine learning, pages 2127–2136. PMLR, 2018. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11

    2018

  13. [21]

    Model- ing dense multimodal interactions between biological path- ways and histology for survival prediction

    Guillaume Jaume, Anurag Vaidya, Richard Chen, Drew Williamson, Paul Liang, and Faisal Mahmood. Model- ing dense multimodal interactions between biological path- ways and histology for survival prediction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Re...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization

    Diederik P Kingma. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 11

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmentation for computational pathology

    Neeraj Kumar, Ruchika Verma, Sanuj Sharma, Surabhi Bhargava, Abhishek Vahadane, and Amit Sethi. A dataset and a technique for generalized nuclear segmentation for computational pathology. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 36(7):1550–1560, 2017. 2

    2017

  16. [24]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12697–12705, 2019. 3

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dynamic graph repre- sentation with knowledge-aware attention for histopathology whole slide image analysis

    Jiawen Li, Yuxuan Chen, Hongbo Chu, Qiehe Sun, Tian Guan, Anjia Han, and Yonghong He. Dynamic graph repre- sentation with knowledge-aware attention for histopathology whole slide image analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis

    Dingkang Liang, Xin Zhou, Wei Xu, Xingkui Zhu, Zhikang Zou, Xiaoqing Ye, Xiao Tan, and Xiang Bai. Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10739, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Interventional bag multi-instance learning on whole-slide pathological images

    Tiancheng Lin, Zhimiao Yu, Hongyu Hu, Yi Xu, and Chang- Wen Chen. Interventional bag multi-instance learning on whole-slide pathological images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19830–19839, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    An integrated tcga pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcome analyt- ics

    Jianfang Liu, Tara Lichtenberg, Katherine A Hoadley, Laila M Poisson, Alexander J Lazar, Andrew D Cherniack, Albert J Kovatich, Christopher C Benz, Douglas A Levine, Adrian V Lee, et al. An integrated tcga pan-cancer clinical data resource to drive high-quality survival outcom...

    2018

  21. [29]

    On the vari- ance of the adaptive learning rate and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03265, 2019

    Liyuan Liu, Haoming Jiang, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Jiawei Han. On the vari- ance of the adaptive learning rate and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03265, 2019. 11

    1908 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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. 10

    2021

  23. [31]

    A foundational mul- timodal vision language ai assistant for human pathology

    Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Kenji Ikamura, Georg Gerber, Ivy Liang, Long Phi Le, Tong Ding, Anil V Parwani, et al. A foundational mul- timodal vision language ai assistant for human pathology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07814, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A visual- language foundation model for computational pathology

    Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Ivy Liang, Tong Ding, Guillaume Jaume, Igor Odintsov, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, et al. A visual- language foundation model for computational pathology. Nature Medicine, 30:863–874, 2024. 1, 4

    2024

  25. [33]

    A visual- language foundation model for computational pathology

    Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Ivy Liang, Tong Ding, Guillaume Jaume, Igor Odintsov, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, et al. A visual- language foundation model for computational pathology. Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024. 2

    2024

  26. [34]

    Re- thinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework

    Xu Ma, Can Qin, Haoxuan You, Haoxi Ran, and Yun Fu. Re- thinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework. ICLR, 2022. 3

    2022

  27. [35]

    V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition

    Daniel Maturana and Sebastian Scherer. V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 922–928. IEEE, 2015. 3

    2015

  28. [36]

    Sparse multi-modal graph transformer with shared-context processing for representation learning of giga-pixel images

    Ramin Nakhli, Puria Azadi Moghadam, Haoyang Mi, Hos- sein Farahani, Alexander Baras, Blake Gilks, and Ali Bashashati. Sparse multi-modal graph transformer with shared-context processing for representation learning of giga-pixel images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- feren...

    2023

  29. [37]

    David B Page, Glenn Broeckx, Chowdhury Arif Ja- hangir, Sara Verbandt, Rajarsi R Gupta, Jeppe Thagaard, Reena Khiroya, Zuzana Kos, Khalid Abduljabbar, Gabriela Acosta Haab, et al. Spatial analyses of immune cell infiltra- tion in cancer: current methods and future directions: ...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660,

  31. [39]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11

    2017

  32. [40]

    Ivt: An end-to-end instance-guided video transformer for 3d pose estimation

    Zhongwei Qiu, Qiansheng Yang, Jian Wang, and Dongmei Fu. Ivt: An end-to-end instance-guided video transformer for 3d pose estimation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 6174–6182,

  33. [41]

    Learning degradation-robust spatiotemporal frequency-transformer for video super- resolution

    Zhongwei Qiu, Huan Yang, Jianlong Fu, Daochang Liu, Chang Xu, and Dongmei Fu. Learning degradation-robust spatiotemporal frequency-transformer for video super- resolution. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, 2023. 3

    2023

  34. [42]

    End- to-end multi-source visual prompt tuning for survival analy- sis in whole slide images

    Zhongwei Qiu, Hanqing Chao, Wenbin Liu, Yixuan Shen, Le Lu, Ke Yan, Dakai Jin, Yun Bian, and Hui Jiang. End- to-end multi-source visual prompt tuning for survival analy- sis in whole slide images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03804,

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    The digital brain tumour atlas, an open histopathology resource

    Thomas Roetzer-Pejrimovsky, Anna-Christina Moser, Baran Atli, Clemens Christian V ogel, Petra A Mercea, Romana Pri- hoda, Ellen Gelpi, Christine Haberler, Romana H ¨oftberger, Johannes A Hainfellner, et al. The digital brain tumour atlas, an open histopathology resource. Scien...

  36. [44]

    Spatial organization and molecular correlation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes using deep learning on pathology images

    Joel Saltz, Rajarsi Gupta, Le Hou, Tahsin Kurc, Pankaj Singh, Vu Nguyen, Dimitris Samaras, Kenneth R Shroyer, Tianhao Zhao, Rebecca Batiste, et al. Spatial organization and molecular correlation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes using deep learning on pathology images. Cell re...

    2018

  37. [45]

    The molecular and cellular heterogeneity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

    Nardin Samuel and Thomas J Hudson. The molecular and cellular heterogeneity of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology, 9(2):77–87,

  38. [46]

    Tumor micro-environment interactions guided graph learning for survival analysis of human can- cers from whole-slide pathological images

    Wei Shao, YangYang Shi, Daoqiang Zhang, JunJie Zhou, and Peng Wan. Tumor micro-environment interactions guided graph learning for survival analysis of human can- cers from whole-slide pathological images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- te...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Transmil: Transformer based correlated multiple instance learning for whole slide image classification

    Zhuchen Shao, Hao Bian, Yang Chen, Yifeng Wang, Jian Zhang, Xiangyang Ji, et al. Transmil: Transformer based correlated multiple instance learning for whole slide image classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:2136–2147, 2021. 2, 6, 7, 11

    2021

  40. [48]

    Dpa-p2pnet: Deformable proposal-aware p2pnet for accurate point-based cell detection

    Zhongyi Shui, Sunyi Zheng, Chenglu Zhu, Shichuan Zhang, Xiaoxuan Yu, Honglin Li, Jingxiong Li, Pingyi Chen, and Lin Yang. Dpa-p2pnet: Deformable proposal-aware p2pnet for accurate point-based cell detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pag...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Mor- phological prototyping for unsupervised slide representation learning in computational pathology

    Andrew H Song, Richard J Chen, Tong Ding, Drew FK Williamson, Guillaume Jaume, and Faisal Mahmood. Mor- phological prototyping for unsupervised slide representation learning in computational pathology. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Re...

    2024

  42. [50]

    A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conven- tional clear cell renal cell carcinoma.The Journal of urology, 173(1):48–51, 2005

    Maximiliano Sorbellini, Michael W Kattan, Mark E Sny- der, Victor Reuter, Robert Motzer, Manlio Goetzl, JAMES McKIERNAN, and Paul Russo. A postoperative prognostic nomogram predicting recurrence for patients with conven- tional clear cell renal cell carcinoma.The Journal of ur...

    2005

  43. [51]

    Pathasst: Redefining pathology through generative founda- tion ai assistant for pathology, 2023

    Yuxuan Sun, Chenglu Zhu, Sunyi Zheng, Kai Zhang, Zhongyi Shui, Xiaoxuan Yu, Yizhi Zhao, Honglin Li, Yun- long Zhang, Ruojia Zhao, Xinheng Lyu, and Lin Yang. Pathasst: Redefining pathology through generative founda- tion ai assistant for pathology, 2023. 4

    2023

  44. [52]

    Methods for segmen- tation and classification of digital microscopy tissue images

    Quoc Dang Vu, Simon Graham, Tahsin Kurc, Minh Nguyen Nhat To, Muhammad Shaban, Talha Qaiser, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Syed Ali Khurram, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Tianhao Zhao, et al. Methods for segmen- tation and classification of digital microscopy tissue images. Frontiers i...

  45. [53]

    Octformer: Octree-based transformers for 3d point clouds

    Peng-Shuai Wang. Octformer: Octree-based transformers for 3d point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 42(4):1–11, 2023. 3

    2023

  46. [54]

    Deep learning of cell spatial organizations identifies clinically relevant insights in tissue images

    Shidan Wang, Ruichen Rong, Qin Zhou, Donghan M Yang, Xinyi Zhang, Xiaowei Zhan, Justin Bishop, Zhikai Chi, Clare J Wilhelm, Siyuan Zhang, et al. Deep learning of cell spatial organizations identifies clinically relevant insights in tissue images. Nature communications, 14(1):7...

    2023

  47. [55]

    A pathology foundation model for can- cer diagnosis and prognosis prediction

    Xiyue Wang, Junhan Zhao, Eliana Marostica, Wei Yuan, Ji- etian Jin, Jiayu Zhang, Ruijiang Li, Hongping Tang, Kanran Wang, Yu Li, et al. A pathology foundation model for can- cer diagnosis and prognosis prediction. Nature, pages 1–9,

  48. [56]

    Point transformer v2: Grouped vector atten- tion and partition-based pooling

    Xiaoyang Wu, Yixing Lao, Li Jiang, Xihui Liu, and Heng- shuang Zhao. Point transformer v2: Grouped vector atten- tion and partition-based pooling. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 35:33330–33342, 2022. 3

    2022

  49. [57]

    Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger

    Xiaoyang Wu, Li Jiang, Peng-Shuai Wang, Zhijian Liu, Xi- hui Liu, Yu Qiao, Wanli Ouyang, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao. Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4840–4851, 2024. ...

    2024

  50. [58]

    A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data

    Hanwen Xu, Naoto Usuyama, Jaspreet Bagga, Sheng Zhang, Rajesh Rao, Tristan Naumann, Cliff Wong, Zelalem Gero, Javier Gonz ´alez, Yu Gu, et al. A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data. Nature, pages 1–8, 2024. 1

    2024

  51. [59]

    Pointweb: Enhancing local neighborhood features for point cloud processing

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Chi-Wing Fu, and Jiaya Jia. Pointweb: Enhancing local neighborhood features for point cloud processing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5565–5573, 2019. 3

    2019

  52. [60]

    Point transformer

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip HS Torr, and Vladlen Koltun. Point transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 16259–16268, 2021. 6

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.