STAR: A Fast and Robust Rigid Registration Framework for Serial Histopathological Images

Shengwei Ding; Zeyu Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 13 references

STAR: A Fast and Robust Rigid Registration Framework for Serial Histopathological Images

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lightweight rigid pipeline aligns multi-stain whole-slide histology images in minutes.

desk verdict STAR is a clear, well-written, open-source rigid registration pipeline for histology, but the paper's central accuracy claims are unsupported by any quantitative evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02952 v1 pith:TIXD3AOK submitted 2025-09-03 cs.CV

Zeyu Liu , Shengwei Ding This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords histopathologywhole-slideimageregistrationrigidmulti-stainalignmenttemplatematchingimmunohistochemistrycross-stainpreprocessingcomputationalpathology

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 argues that for consecutive serial sections, rigid alignment is often sufficient, and that a deliberately simple pipeline built from stain-conditioned preprocessing plus hierarchical correlation can replace heavier deformable or deep-learning tools for multi-stain whole-slide registration. It introduces STAR, which registers all target stains to a single reference by maximizing a correlation score over rotation and translation on downsampled thumbnails, then refines the result. Evaluated on the ANHIR 2019 and ACROBAT 2022 datasets, the claim is stable alignment across H&E, special histochemical stains, and IHC markers, within minutes per slide, despite cross-stain variability and partial tissue overlap. If correct, STAR gives pathologists and AI-data builders a reproducible lightweight baseline instead of requiring complex deformable models.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the correlation-maximization registration objective: for each target, STAR selects the rotation and translation that maximize the inner product between the processed reference and the transformed target. It implements this as a coarse-to-fine convolution search over a GPU rotation bank, with an adaptive kernel-scaling rule that downsamples the template when it is larger than the cropped target. The load-bearing part is the stain-conditioned preprocessing: it is what makes the correlation surface peak at the true rigid transform despite different stains.

What would settle it

Run STAR on a set of serial H&E-IHC slide pairs and compare its estimated rotation and translation with manually placed landmarks on the 32x thumbnails; if a non-negligible fraction of pairs has rotational error of 10 degrees or more, or translational error of 10 pixels or more at that scale, the coarse-to-fine peak assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a multi-stage template-correlation search, after stain-aware preprocessing, is sufficient to align serial whole-slide images across very different staining protocols. The objective is the arg max over in-plane rotation and translation of the correlation between a processed grayscale reference and each target. STAR builds a bank of 36 rotated reference templates at 10-degree steps, correlates each against the processed target on a 32x downsampled thumbnail, selects the best peak, then refines around it at 1-degree and pixel-level strides. The key design choice is asymmetric preprocessing: reference sections (usually H&E) are histogram-equalized, inverted, and contras

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the coarse 10-degree, 10-pixel correlation search landing close enough to the true alignment after the stain-normalizing preprocessing; if staining differences flatten or shift the correlation peak beyond that grid, the claimed cross-stain stability fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Consecutive-section workflows can adopt a rigid baseline that runs in roughly one to two minutes per slide pair, making large-scale paired dataset construction practical.
H&E-IHC and multi-IHC panels can be aligned to a single reference, enabling virtual staining and biomarker-prediction training data without specialized multiplex imaging.
The open-source implementation gives other researchers a reproducible comparison point; affine or deformable refinements can be appended later without replacing the rigid core.
The exported registration parameters and tissue masks allow downstream patch extraction to be restricted to corresponding tissue regions.

Reading between the lines

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

If the preprocessing truly normalizes stain appearance, the same correlation objective could plausibly extend to other conserved-architecture modalities such as multiplex immunofluorescence or cytology smears; the paper only mentions this as future work.
A testable extension is to measure how far the coarse 10-degree and 10-pixel grid can be coarsened before the capture rate drops, by perturbing known transforms and running the pipeline on synthetic rotations and shifts.
The implicit claim that rigid alignment suffices for consecutive sections likely degrades as section spacing grows; one could test failure rate as a function of cutting distance, since finer structural correspondence will worsen even with perfect preprocessing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the STAR pipeline is a sensible integration of standard building blocks—stain-conditioned preprocessing, hierarchical correlation, adaptive kernel scaling, quality control—and the authors released the code, which is genuinely useful for the community. But the paper's central claim, "stable alignments within minutes on ANHIR/ACROBAT," has no quantitative support: no landmark errors, no baselines, no runtimes with hardware, no failure rates. The only evidence is visual inspection of a few cases. That's a load-bearing gap, not a minor omission.

What the paper does well: the method is described clearly, the design choices are reasonable and mostly standard, and the authors are transparent about failure modes in Section V.C. The open-source release is a real contribution—a lightweight, reproducible rigid baseline is something the field lacks. The preprocessing asymmetry (reference H&E vs. target IHC/special stains) is well motivated, and the coarse-to-fine search with 10° then 1° increments is a sensible way to keep the search tractable.

Where it falls short: the evaluation section is essentially absent. The abstract promises robustness to cross-stain variability and partial tissue overlap, but the experiments never measure alignment accuracy. ANHIR and ACROBAT both provide landmarks; reporting TRE or at least a comparison with a simple baseline would be straightforward. The stress-test note is correct: this is more fundamental than the question of whether the correlation surface is peaked. If the correlation is unreliable, the method fails; if it is reliable, it works—but we need numbers to know which. The hand-picked free parameters (downsample factor, strides, thresholds) are not derived from the data, which is fine for a heuristic pipeline, but it makes the robustness claim even more dependent on empirical validation. The authors do note the partial-tissue-overlap handling in Section III.E, but no evidence is shown.

One minor thing: the runtime claim (1–2 minutes per slide) appears in the implementation details without hardware specs or a proper benchmark. That's exactly the kind of number that needs a table.

Who this is for: someone building a rigid registration baseline for histology and wanting a starting point. The code may be worth trying directly. The paper itself, though, is not yet a credible evidence-based contribution.

My recommendation: I would not send this to peer review in its current form. The missing quantitative evaluation is a rejection-level issue, not a revision-level one. That said, the gap is fillable: the code is public, the datasets are public, and adding landmark-based errors and baseline comparisons would likely make this a solid submission. Revise, add the numbers, then resubmit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents STAR, an open-source rigid registration framework for serial whole-slide histological images. The method combines stain-conditioned preprocessing (histogram equalization, inversion, thresholding, blur) with a hierarchical coarse-to-fine correlation search over in-plane rotation and translation, plus adaptive kernel scaling, quality control, and optional human-in-the-loop refinement. The authors claim that on the ANHIR 2019 and ACROBAT 2022 datasets STAR consistently produces stable alignments within minutes per slide, and they position it as a lightweight, reproducible baseline for multi-stain registration and AI training-data preparation. The manuscript includes a pipeline description, algorithm pseudocode, qualitative figures, and an open-source code release, but it contains no quantitative evaluation of registration accuracy, no comparison to existing methods, and only a terse statement about runtime.

Significance. If the claimed performance were substantiated, STAR would be a useful and practical contribution: a fast, simple rigid-registration baseline to complement deformable and deep-learning methods, with open-source code, batch processing support, and built-in quality control. The method is self-contained and does not appear to overfit to benchmark outcomes, which is a strength. However, the central empirical claim—robust, stable, fast alignment on ANHIR and ACROBAT—is currently unsupported by any quantitative evidence. The paper's value hinges on that claim, so the missing evaluation is the decisive issue.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; §IV.A; §IV.B; §V.B] The abstract states that STAR 'consistently produced stable alignments within minutes per slide' on ANHIR and ACROBAT, but the manuscript provides no quantitative results. Section IV only describes the datasets and implementation details; Section V.B reports 'visual inspections confirmed stable alignment,' which cannot support claims of robustness or consistency. There are no landmark-based target registration errors, no success/failure rates, no error bars, and no comparison with any baseline or existing rigid/affine registration method. Because the whole method reduces to an argmax over a correlation surface (Eq. 4), a systematic failure mode on a nontrivial fraction of pairs would be invisible in a few selected visual examples. The authors should add a full quantitative evaluation on ANHIR (which has ground-truth landmarks) and ACROBAT, including per-case error distributions, failure
[§III.D.1; Eq. (4)] The coarse-to-fine strategy assumes that the 10-degree angular stride and 10-pixel translation stride do not miss the global correlation peak. This assumption is load-bearing: if the coarse stage selects a wrong local mode, the fine stage (restricted to [θc−10, θc+10] and a ±50 px crop) cannot recover the true alignment. The manuscript offers no evidence that the correlation surface is sufficiently peaked or unimodal for the chosen grid spacing. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis or a synthetic experiment with known ground-truth transforms to show that the coarse grid captures the global peak, or describe an adaptive scheme to avoid this risk.
[§IV.B] The only runtime statement, 'rigid registration per slide pair required approximately 1–2 minutes,' is not a reproducible benchmark. No hardware configuration (GPU model, CPU, memory), WSI dimensions, number of pairs, or per-case timing distribution is reported. Since 'fast' is a headline contribution, the authors should provide a proper timing table with hardware specifications, data sizes, and variance across cases, and ideally a comparison with a standard CPU-based registration baseline.
[§III.C; §III.D.3] The stain-conditioned preprocessing pipeline—histogram equalization, intensity thresholds (<30 and <50), Gaussian blur, inversion, and adaptive kernel scaling—is central to the claimed cross-stain robustness, but none of these choices are validated or ablated. For example, the threshold at 30 for target images and the threshold at 50 for reference images are hard-coded, and no evidence shows they generalize across the stains and scanners represented in ANHIR/ACROBAT. An ablation study (e.g., removing inversion, blur, or each thresholding step) would substantiate the design and help users understand failure modes. This is particularly important because Section V.C already concedes that 'extreme staining artifacts or scanner-specific noise can reduce correlation responses,' so the preprocessing choices need quantitative support.

minor comments (4)

[References] Reference [2] contains a LaTeX artifact in the author list ('g.-i. family=Lotz, given=JM'), and reference [11] is missing complete bibliographic details. Please clean up the bibliography.
[Eq. (1); §III.A] The inner product in Eq. (1) is not formally defined; since Φ_R and rotated/translated Φ_T may have different support, the correlation measure should be specified precisely (e.g., normalized cross-correlation or zero-normalized cross-correlation). This matters for understanding what the argmax actually optimizes.
[Fig. 2] Figure 2 shows representative cases but lacks scale bars, annotations of which panel corresponds to which dataset/stain, and any indication of alignment accuracy at high resolution. Adding landmark overlays or checkerboard/divider visualizations would strengthen the qualitative evidence.
[§III.B] The ResNet-18 foreground detector is described as 'pre-trained' and 'modified with a binary classification head,' but no details are given about the training data, fine-tuning procedure, or expected foreground-mask accuracy. At minimum, state the source of the pretrained weights and whether the head was trained specifically for histology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: STAR is a self-contained template-matching pipeline with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a rigid registration pipeline: it defines the alignment as the argmax of a correlation score over rotations and translations (Eq. 1, Eq. 3-4), with hand-specified preprocessing thresholds and search strides. No parameter is fitted to the benchmark outcome, no prediction is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to predict, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' own prior work. The claims about robustness on ANHIR/ACROBAT are asserted qualitatively and lack quantitative evaluation, but that is an empirical-support gap, not circular reasoning: the method would be tested against external landmarks and baselines, and its equations do not presuppose the target alignment. The use of standard template matching and a ResNet-18 foreground classifier is not presented as a derivation from a self-cited uniqueness theorem. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters (downsample factor, angle/translation strides, thresholds) and on the undemonstrated assumption that preprocessed grayscale correlation captures cross-stain rigid alignment. No new entities are introduced. The free parameters are not fitted to the benchmarks, but they are tuned by hand and their sensitivity is not reported.

free parameters (7)

Downsample factor d = 32
Used to create thumbnails for all registration steps; hand-chosen for speed (Algorithm 1, Section IV.B).
Coarse angular stride a_c = 10 degrees
Creates 36 rotation templates; hand-chosen to trade speed vs. angle resolution (Section III.D.1).
Coarse translation stride s_c = 10 pixels
Stride for coarse convolution; hand-chosen (Section III.D.1).
Fine angular stride a_f = 1 degree
Fine search within +/-10 degrees; hand-chosen (Section III.D.2).
Foreground intensity thresholds = white=230, black=20; target background <30
Hand-chosen thresholds for preprocessing (Algorithm 1, Section III.C).
Fine-stage crop padding = 50 pixels
Padding around coarse location for fine search (Section III.D.2).
Foreground ResNet-18 patch stride = 64 pixels, patch 256x256
Hand-chosen stride for tissue classification (Section III.B).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Consecutive serial sections are approximately rigidly related; distortion, tears, and folding are minor relative to the needed alignment.
The entire method is a rigid transform search; the authors state in Section V.C that severe distortions and tears are not handled.
domain assumption Grayscale correlation of the specifically preprocessed images peaks at the true rigid alignment across different stains.
The registration objective in Eq. (1) and the coarse search in Eq. (4) rely on this; no validation is provided.
ad hoc to paper The coarse search grid with 10 degree angular and 10 pixel translation strides does not miss the global correlation peak.
The algorithm assumes the true transform is within one coarse step of the sampled grid so that the fine stage can refine it; this is an unanalyzed assumption (Section III.D.1).
domain assumption The pre-trained ResNet-18 transfers to histology tissue/non-tissue classification without fine-tuning.
Foreground detection depends on this network (Section III.B). There is a histogram-based fallback, which mitigates, but the main pipeline relies on it.
ad hoc to paper Bilinear interpolation during adaptive kernel scaling preserves sufficient template structure for correlation.
Section III.D.3 assumes that downscaling the template when it exceeds the input size does not break matching; no analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of STAR: A Fast and Robust Rigid Registration Framework for Serial Histopathological Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIXD3AOK

@misc{pith2026250902952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: STAR: A Fast and Robust Rigid Registration Framework for Serial Histopathological Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIXD3AOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02952}
}

read the original abstract

Registration of serial whole-slide histopathological images (WSIs) is critical for enabling direct comparison across diverse stains and for preparing paired datasets in artificial intelligence (AI) workflows such as virtual staining and biomarker prediction. While existing methods often rely on complex deformable or deep learning approaches that are computationally intensive and difficult to reproduce, lightweight rigid frameworks-sufficient for many consecutive-section scenarios-remain underdeveloped. We introduce STAR (Serial Tissue Alignment for Rigid registration), a fast and robust open-source framework for multi-WSI alignment. STAR integrates stain-conditioned preprocessing with a hierarchical coarse-to-fine correlation strategy, adaptive kernel scaling, and built-in quality control, achieving reliable rigid registration across heterogeneous tissue types and staining protocols, including hematoxylin-eosin (H&E), special histochemical stains (e.g., PAS, PASM, Masson's), and immunohistochemical (IHC) markers (e.g., CD31, KI67). Evaluated on the ANHIR 2019 and ACROBAT 2022 datasets spanning multiple organs and scanning conditions, STAR consistently produced stable alignments within minutes per slide, demonstrating robustness to cross-stain variability and partial tissue overlap. Beyond benchmarks, we present case studies on H&E-IHC alignment, construction of multi-IHC panels, and typical failure modes, underscoring both utility and limitations. Released as an open and lightweight tool, STAR provides a reproducible baseline that lowers the barrier for clinical adoption and enables large-scale paired data preparation for next-generation computational pathology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02952 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of this study. a, Typical workflow of digital pathology, including biopsy, sectioning, staining, and scanning. b, The proposed STAR framework for serial rigid registration. c, Example of multi-stain images before and after alignment, showing the correspondence achieved by STAR. cropping boundaries while maintaining tissue integrity. C. Stain-Conditioned Preprocessing The preprocessing stage transforms raw W… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Representative registration outcomes across datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

From traditional to deep learning approaches in whole slide image registration: A methodological review

B. Elhaminia, A. Alsalemi, E. Nasir, M. Jahanifar, R. Awan, L. S. Young, N. M. Rajpoot, F. Minhas, and S. E. A. Raza, “From traditional to deep learning approaches in whole slide image registration: A methodological review.”

work page
[2]

Patch-based nonlinear image registration for gigapixel whole slide images,

J. Lotz, J. Olesch, B. M ¨uller, T. Polzin, P. Galuschka, g.-i. family=Lotz, given=JM, S. Heldmann, H. Laue, M. Gonz ´alez-Vallinas, A. Warth, et al. , “Patch-based nonlinear image registration for gigapixel whole slide images,” vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1812–1819

work page
[3]

DeepHistReg: Unsupervised deep learn- ing registration framework for differently stained histology samples,

M. Wodzinski and H. M ¨uller, “DeepHistReg: Unsupervised deep learn- ing registration framework for differently stained histology samples,” vol. 198, p. 105799

work page
[4]

Hyper- stain inspector: a framework for robust registration and localised co- expression analysis of multiple whole-slide images of serial histology sections,

N. Trahearn, D. Epstein, I. Cree, D. Snead, and N. Rajpoot, “Hyper- stain inspector: a framework for robust registration and localised co- expression analysis of multiple whole-slide images of serial histology sections,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 5641, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images,

R. Awan and N. Rajpoot, “Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images,” in Annual Conference on Medical Image Under- standing and Analysis , pp. 371–378, Springer, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Automatic Nonrigid Histological Image Registration with Adaptive Multistep Algorithm

M. Wodzinski and A. Skalski, “Automatic nonrigid histological im- age registration with adaptive multistep algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00982, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1904
[7]

Raphia: A deep learning pipeline for the registration of mri and whole-mount histopathology images of the prostate,

W. Shao, S. Vesal, S. J. Soerensen, I. Bhattacharya, N. Golestani, R. Yamashita, C. A. Kunder, R. E. Fan, P. Ghanouni, J. D. Brooks, et al. , “Raphia: A deep learning pipeline for the registration of mri and whole-mount histopathology images of the prostate,” Computers in biology and medicine , vol. 173, p. 108318, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Stitching and registering highly multiplexed whole-slide images of tissues and tumors using ashlar,

J. L. Muhlich, Y .-A. Chen, C. Yapp, D. Russell, S. Santagata, and P. K. Sorger, “Stitching and registering highly multiplexed whole-slide images of tissues and tumors using ashlar,” Bioinformatics, vol. 38, no. 19, pp. 4613–4621, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 13 references

[9]

Deep learning based registration of serial whole- slide histopathology images in different stains,

M. Roy, F. Wang, G. Teodoro, S. Bhattarai, M. Bhargava, T. S. Rekha, R. Aneja, and J. Kong, “Deep learning based registration of serial whole- slide histopathology images in different stains,” Journal of Pathology Informatics, vol. 14, p. 100311, 2023

2023
[10]

Whole slide image registration via multi-stained feature matching,

M. Z. Hoque, A. Keskinarkaus, P. Nyberg, T. Mattila, and T. Sepp ¨anen, “Whole slide image registration via multi-stained feature matching,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 144, p. 105301, 2022

2022
[11]

An open-source whole slide image registration workflow at cellular precision using Fiji, QuPath and Elastix,

N. Chiaruttini, O. Burri, P. Haub, R. Guiet, J. Sordet-Dessimoz, and A. Seitz, “An open-source whole slide image registration workflow at cellular precision using Fiji, QuPath and Elastix,” vol. 3, p. 780026
[12]

ANHIR: Automatic Non-Rigid Histological Image Registration Challenge,

J. Borovec, J. Kybic, I. Arganda-Carreras, D. V . Sorokin, G. Bueno, A. V . Khvostikov, S. Bakas, E. I.-C. Chang, S. Heldmann, K. Kartasalo, et al., “ANHIR: Automatic Non-Rigid Histological Image Registration Challenge,” vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 3042–3052
[13]

The ACROBAT 2022 challenge: Automatic registration of breast cancer tissue,

P. Weitz, M. Valkonen, L. Solorzano, C. Carr, K. Kartasalo, C. Boissin, S. Koivukoski, A. Kuusela, D. Rasic, Y . Feng, et al., “The ACROBAT 2022 challenge: Automatic registration of breast cancer tissue,” vol. 97, p. 103257

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

From traditional to deep learning approaches in whole slide image registration: A methodological review

B. Elhaminia, A. Alsalemi, E. Nasir, M. Jahanifar, R. Awan, L. S. Young, N. M. Rajpoot, F. Minhas, and S. E. A. Raza, “From traditional to deep learning approaches in whole slide image registration: A methodological review.”

work page

[2] [2]

Patch-based nonlinear image registration for gigapixel whole slide images,

J. Lotz, J. Olesch, B. M ¨uller, T. Polzin, P. Galuschka, g.-i. family=Lotz, given=JM, S. Heldmann, H. Laue, M. Gonz ´alez-Vallinas, A. Warth, et al. , “Patch-based nonlinear image registration for gigapixel whole slide images,” vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1812–1819

work page

[3] [3]

DeepHistReg: Unsupervised deep learn- ing registration framework for differently stained histology samples,

M. Wodzinski and H. M ¨uller, “DeepHistReg: Unsupervised deep learn- ing registration framework for differently stained histology samples,” vol. 198, p. 105799

work page

[4] [4]

Hyper- stain inspector: a framework for robust registration and localised co- expression analysis of multiple whole-slide images of serial histology sections,

N. Trahearn, D. Epstein, I. Cree, D. Snead, and N. Rajpoot, “Hyper- stain inspector: a framework for robust registration and localised co- expression analysis of multiple whole-slide images of serial histology sections,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 5641, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images,

R. Awan and N. Rajpoot, “Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images,” in Annual Conference on Medical Image Under- standing and Analysis , pp. 371–378, Springer, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Automatic Nonrigid Histological Image Registration with Adaptive Multistep Algorithm

M. Wodzinski and A. Skalski, “Automatic nonrigid histological im- age registration with adaptive multistep algorithm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00982, 2019

work page Pith review arXiv 1904

[7] [7]

Raphia: A deep learning pipeline for the registration of mri and whole-mount histopathology images of the prostate,

W. Shao, S. Vesal, S. J. Soerensen, I. Bhattacharya, N. Golestani, R. Yamashita, C. A. Kunder, R. E. Fan, P. Ghanouni, J. D. Brooks, et al. , “Raphia: A deep learning pipeline for the registration of mri and whole-mount histopathology images of the prostate,” Computers in biology and medicine , vol. 173, p. 108318, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Stitching and registering highly multiplexed whole-slide images of tissues and tumors using ashlar,

J. L. Muhlich, Y .-A. Chen, C. Yapp, D. Russell, S. Santagata, and P. K. Sorger, “Stitching and registering highly multiplexed whole-slide images of tissues and tumors using ashlar,” Bioinformatics, vol. 38, no. 19, pp. 4613–4621, 2022

work page 2022