REVIEW 1 cited by
WSI-VQA: Interpreting Whole Slide Images by Generative Visual Question Answering
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Whole slide imaging is routinely adopted for carcinoma diagnosis and prognosis. Abundant experience is required for pathologists to achieve accurate and reliable diagnostic results of whole slide images (WSI). The huge size and heterogeneous features of WSIs make the workflow of pathological reading extremely time-consuming. In this paper, we propose a novel framework (WSI-VQA) to interpret WSIs by generative visual question answering. WSI-VQA shows universality by reframing various kinds of slide-level tasks in a question-answering pattern, in which pathologists can achieve immunohistochemical grading, survival prediction, and tumor subtyping following human-machine interaction. Furthermore, we establish a WSI-VQA dataset which contains 8672 slide-level question-answering pairs with 977 WSIs. Besides the ability to deal with different slide-level tasks, our generative model which is named Wsi2Text Transformer (W2T) outperforms existing discriminative models in medical correctness, which reveals the potential of our model to be applied in the clinical scenario. Additionally, we also visualize the co-attention mapping between word embeddings and WSIs as an intuitive explanation for diagnostic results. The dataset and related code are available at https://github.com/cpystan/WSI-VQA.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ChatEXAONEPath: An Expert-level Multimodal Large Language Model for Histopathology Using Whole Slide Images
ChatEXAONEPath fine-tunes LLaVA with WSI-level features from TCGA slides, reaching 62.9% acceptance by an AI judge on generated pathology reports, though the judge's reliability is questioned in the paper.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.