Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 7 minor 31 references

SEW: Self-calibration Enhanced Whole Slide Pathology Image Analysis

T0 review · 6 major / 7 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 SEW reports the highest accuracy and fastest inference on six cancer whole-slide datasets, and surfaces three colorectal prognostic markers from learned features.

desk verdict A genuinely fast and coherent WSI pipeline whose SOTA claim is currently under-supported by a missing baseline comparison and underspecified mask supervision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10853 v2 pith:YCAYLHUA submitted 2024-12-14 cs.CV

Haoming Luo , Xiaotian Yu , Shengxuming Zhang , Jiabin Xia , Yang Jian , Yuning Sun , Liang Xue , Mingli Song
show 3 more authors
Jing Zhang Xiuming Zhang Zunlei Feng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords wholeslideimageanalysisself-calibrationsuperpixelgraphfocuspredictorpathologicalprototypevocabularytumormarkerminingcolorectalcancerpathologygrading
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

SEW is a framework for analyzing gigapixel whole slide pathology images that tries to get both global structure and local detail without paying the computational cost of pyramid features or whole-slide patch MIL. It first classifies a thumbnail through a superpixel graph and transformer, then a focus predictor selects the most suspicious regions, and a detailed branch re-examines those regions at higher magnification; a consistency constraint feeds local detail back into the global branch. The paper reports the highest accuracy and fastest speed across six datasets (CAMELYON16, PANDA, BRCA, LUAD, and in-house HCC, GC, CRC), at 5.44–10.97 seconds per slide. On a colorectal prognosis cohort, k-means clustering of focused features and prototype-based tissue reconstruction lead to two verified novel markers (mucinous lakes, necrosis within glands) and a tissue-infiltration marker. The reason to care: if these results hold, accurate WSI grading and prognosis no longer require hours of compute, and AI can propose candidate tumor markers for pathologists to verify.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a self-calibration loop built on three learned components. A superpixel graph (SLIC) converts the thumbnail into about 1024 nodes with color histograms plus spatial positions; a 3-layer GCN aggregates neighbor features, then a 12-layer cross-attention transformer with a classification token classifies the slide. The focus predictor reads the transformer's last-layer node tokens and predicts a lesion heatmap, trained first on Grad-CAM pseudo-labels and later on local-branch outputs; top-K non-overlapping subgraphs are zoomed for the local branch. The local branch builds finer superpixel graphs, applies intra-group and inter-group cross-attention with class tokens per group, and is supervised by lesion-area masks. The consistency constraint $L_{cst} = D_{KL}(W_{cls}^{proj} CLS_{local}^t \| h'_n)$ forces the global node feature to match the local class token, so the global branch learns where to look. Finally, k-means over all local node features forms a pathological prototype vocabulary that ties same-semantic tissues across slides and enables whole-slide reconstruction for spatial marker mining.

What would settle it

Run SEW on CAMELYON16 and PANDA with only slide-level labels, disabling the lesion-mask supervision of the local branch; if accuracy drops to or below the CLAM or ZoomMIL baselines, the reported gains depend on undocumented mask annotations rather than on self-calibration alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the authors would state it, is that SEW—a three-component pipeline of a global superpixel-graph thumbnail classifier, a focus predictor that locates high-probability lesion regions, and a local branch that classifies magnified top-K subgraphs—simultaneously solves the global-vs-local and speed-vs-accuracy problems in WSI analysis. The global branch gives structural context; the focus predictor narrows attention; the local branch supplies cellular-level validation; the KL consistency constraint makes the global branch extract features aligned with the local detail. The paper asserts this pipeline achieves the highest accuracy and the fastest speed on all six evaluated datasets (e.g., CAMELYON16 85.69% at 5.44s versus HIPT 85.57% at 335.74s), and that the focused discriminative features, clustered with k-means and reconstructed through a pathological prototype vocabulary, reveal two novel colorectal cancer markers—mucinous lakes and necrosis within glands—and a third spatial marker, the degree of tumor infiltration.

Load-bearing premise

The local branch is trained on lesion-area masks or region-level labels, but the paper only says those masks exist for the three in-house datasets; for the four public datasets, mask availability is not described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whole-slide grading and prognosis can run in 5–11 seconds per slide on a single GPU, two orders of magnitude faster than pyramid- or graph-based methods, with equal or better accuracy.
  • The focus predictor plus local validation makes attention inspectable: heatmaps and top-K regions give a built-in explanation of each decision, useful for clinical review.
  • The pretrained features transfer across cancer types: fine-tuning from HCC weights converges in about half the epochs and stays within 0.07–0.64% of training from scratch, suggesting reusable pathology representations.
  • Superpixel-based graph nodes beat fixed 16x16 patches for this task: on HCC and CAMELYON16, superpixel graphs improve accuracy by roughly 2–4.5 points and AUC by 0.05–0.06.
  • If the CRC marker results hold, SEW gives pathologists a small candidate set from feature clusters rather than an overwhelming patch pool, shortening the loop from data to marker hypothesis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same global-focus-local self-calibration pattern could transfer to other gigapixel domains such as satellite or whole-organ imaging, where global context and local detail both matter; the paper's contribution is the mechanism, not just the medical result.
  • Editorial inference: the novel-marker claims rest on a 100-case CRC subset and pathologist verification; a prospective, blinded study on independent cohorts would be needed to confirm prognostic value, because cluster uniqueness in a single retrospective set can reflect cohort-specific artifacts.
  • Editorial inference: because mask supervision is documented only for in-house datasets, a clean testable extension is fully weakly-supervised SEW (slide labels only) on CAMELYON16 and PANDA; the gap between that and the reported numbers would quantify how much of the gain is genuinely self-calibration versus lesion-mask supervision.
  • Editorial inference: the pathological prototype vocabulary could be reused as a tissue-level dictionary for cross-slide registration, stain normalization, or content-based retrieval, beyond its current role in classification and reconstruction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SEW, a whole-slide pathology image analysis framework with three components: a global branch that classifies a thumbnail via a superpixel graph and transformer, a focus predictor that selects top-K regions from the global branch's features, and a local branch that classifies these magnified regions using lesion-area supervision. A consistency constraint (L_cst) aligns global and local features, and a 'pathological prototype vocabulary' is formed by k-means clustering for final classification and tumor-marker mining. Experiments on seven datasets (PANDA, CAMELYON16, BRCA, LUAD, and three in-house sets HCC, GC, CRC) report classification accuracy and inference time, claiming state-of-the-art accuracy and the fastest speed (5.44-10.97 s/slide). The paper also claims discovery of two novel colorectal cancer prognostic markers (mucinous lakes and necrosis within glands) plus a tissue-infiltration spatial marker (§4.3).

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the framework would be a valuable contribution to computational pathology, combining interpretability, high inference speed, and competitive accuracy, and the marker-mining pipeline could aid biomarker discovery. The paper's strengths include a clearly described architecture with ablations showing that each component helps (Table 4), a generalization study (Table 2), a superpixel-vs-patch comparison (Table 3), and an explicit focus on inference speed. However, the evidence for the headline accuracy claim is statistically weak (margins are often within one standard deviation), the supervision requirements for public datasets are underspecified, a highly relevant speed-focused baseline (TransMIL) is omitted from comparisons, and the marker-mining section relies on in-sample clustering without external validation. These issues currently limit the significance of the results to a promising but not fully established framework.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3.3.3, §4.1] The local branch supervision is not specified for the public datasets. The loss L_local_CLS uses y_t_gt, which 'indicates whether the corresponding area belongs to the lesion area' when a lesion mask is supplied, or a multi-dimensional one-hot region label. Section 4.1 confirms such annotations only for the three in-house datasets (HCC, GC, CRC). For PANDA, CAMELYON16, BRCA, and LUAD, the paper does not state how y_t_gt is obtained; CAMELYON16 has pixel-level tumor annotations, but standard lesion-area masks are not defined for PANDA, BRCA, and LUAD. If slide-level labels are broadcast to every focused group, the local branch degenerates to a patch-level MIL classifier and the self-calibration mechanism described in §3.2-3.3 is not trained as claimed. If masks are generated by an undocumented heuristic, the results depend on that heuristic and are not reproducible. This gap directly affects the fairness of the SOTA comparison in Table 1, because SEW may be using per-slide lesion annotations that weakly supervised baselines (e.g., CLAM, TransMIL) do not receive. Please specify the mask source for each dataset or adapt the local branch to use only slide-level labels.
  2. [§4.3, §3.6] The tumor marker mining is circular with respect to the training data. The CRC model is trained on prognosis labels, and the same cohort (100 cases with follow-up) is then used to extract focused-region features and cluster them. Because the features were optimized to separate good from poor prognosis, the appearance of poor-prognosis-only clusters (red points in Fig. 2a) is expected and does not independently validate 'novel tumor markers.' No external or held-out cohort is used to confirm that mucinous lakes, necrosis within glands, and degree of infiltration carry independent prognostic information. The pathologist's verification is qualitative and does not substitute for a statistical association with prognosis in unseen data. Please either validate the markers on an independent cohort (e.g., show that the identified markers are correlated with prognosis in a separate dataset) or substantially temper the claims in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [Table 1, §4.2] The accuracy comparison lacks statistical significance testing. The paper reports mean±std but no p-values, confidence intervals, or number of runs/folds. On most datasets the margin over the best baseline is within one standard deviation (e.g., CAMELYON16: SEW 85.69±0.85 vs Tea-Graph 85.62±1.14; HCC: SEW 87.93±0.63 vs CLAM 87.83±1.53; BRCA: SEW 87.44±0.94 vs HIPT 87.26±2.25). Without paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test over the same folds/runs), the statement that SEW 'achieves the highest accuracy' (§4.2) is not supported. Please add appropriate statistical tests and report effect sizes or confidence intervals, or qualify the accuracy claim accordingly.
  4. [§4.2, Table 1] TransMIL, a highly relevant speed-focused baseline, is discussed in §2.2 and §4.2 but is missing from Table 1. Since the paper's headline claim includes 'the fastest speed' (§4.2), the comparison should include TransMIL under the same timing protocol. Moreover, §4.2 states that inference time includes pre-processing and prediction, but then says TransMIL and ZoomMIL have pre-processing that 'takes hundreds of seconds.' The reported ZoomMIL times in Table 1 (e.g., 7.58s for PANDA, 428.19s for CAMELYON16) appear inconsistent with that statement unless pre-processing is sometimes included and sometimes not. Please clarify the timing protocol for every method and include TransMIL in the comparison.
  5. [§3.4.1, §3.5] The 'pathological prototype vocabulary' is not defined as a shared cross-slide vocabulary. In §3.4.1, k-means is applied to node representations from the local graphs of 'the current WSI,' yielding cluster centers O_c for that WSI. The text claims this vocabulary 'reinforce[s] feature consistency across diverse WSI samples,' but no loss term or update rule is given to align prototypes across slides, and the final prediction in §3.5 averages per-slide cluster centers. This matters for the spatial-distribution marker analysis in §4.3, which assumes that the same semantic tissue type is assigned the same prototype across different WSIs. Please specify how a global prototype vocabulary is constructed, how it is shared across slides, and how it is used during training and inference.
  6. [§3.3.4] The consistency loss L_cst = DKL(W_proj_cls CLS_t_local || h'_n) is undefined as written. DKL is a divergence between probability distributions, but both operands are d-dimensional real-valued vectors. Unless a normalization step (e.g., softmax or softmax temperature scaling) is applied to convert both vectors into distributions, the KL divergence cannot be computed. Please define the exact transformation applied to the vectors before computing the divergence, or replace the loss with a bounded similarity measure such as cosine distance or mean squared error.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4.1] The classification tasks for the public datasets are not specified: the paper does not state whether PANDA is Gleason grading, CAMELYON16 is lymph-node metastasis detection, BRCA is a specific breast cancer task (e.g., ER status or grade), and LUAD is a particular subtype or stage classification. This information is needed for reproducibility and for interpreting the reported accuracy values.
  2. [§4.3, §5, §1] The paper uses 'tumor maker' instead of 'tumor marker' in the Section 4.3 heading, in the conclusion, and in the contribution list ('new tumor mark finding'). These should be corrected to 'tumor marker.'
  3. [§3.3.3] The notation is confusing in the second equation: CLS_t_local appears on both sides. Please use a distinct symbol (e.g., CLS''_t_local) for the output of the inter-group attention to avoid self-referential notation.
  4. [Table 1] In the CRC row, there appears to be an extra '757.79' value before SEW's time of 9.82; please clean up the table formatting.
  5. [§3.4.1] The phrase 'form the pathological prototype vocabulary for the current WSI' conflicts with the claim that the vocabulary enforces consistency across diverse WSI samples. Please reword to make clear whether the prototypes are computed per-slide or globally.
  6. [§2.3, §4.2] The baseline name is written as 'TeaGraph' in §2.3 and 'Tea-Graph' in §4.2; please use a consistent spelling.
  7. [§3.2] The focus predictor loss uses Q_gt, but the paper does not formally define how Q_gt is constructed when the pseudo-label switches from Grad-CAM to the local branch's prediction. Please specify the schedule and the exact form of Q_gt in each phase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Tumor-marker 'discovery' reads out in-sample clusters from a prognosis-trained model; the classification pipeline itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 'Tumor Maker Mining and Visualization', following the method in Section 3.6 'Application on Tumor Marker Mining']
    "Using the SEW model, which was well trained on CRC dataset, we analyzed these patients’ tissue slices, collected focused tissue-level features extracted from local subgraphs of all samples, and performed clustering on these features. Fig. 2(a) displays the clustering results, where red and green points represent features derived from poor and good prognosis samples, respectively. Distinct clusters (with only red color points) are observed for features from poor prognoses."

    SEW is optimized on the CRC cohort with prognosis labels through L_all, L_global_cls, L_local_cls, and L_cst. The features fed to k-means are extracted by that same trained model from that same cohort. Label-separated clusters are therefore a by-construction consequence of the supervised training signal, not an independent discovery. Presenting these in-sample clusters as 'novel tumor markers' without a held-out cohort, a survival analysis, or an external validation set is a post-hoc relabeling of the fitted features: the marker-mining result is equivalent to re-reading the prognosis supervision rather than predicting it.

full rationale

The main classification pipeline is a standard supervised training-and-evaluation procedure; the equations L_global_cls, L_focus, L_local_cls, L_cst, and L_all do not contain an input-output tautology, so the SOTA accuracy and speed claims are not construction-level circular. The circularity is confined to the marker-mining part: the 'unique cluster' markers are derived from the same cohort and the same features used to fit the prognosis model, making the discovery an in-sample description of the training labels. The underspecified lesion-mask supervision for public datasets is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall score reflects one partial, non-central circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central classification pipeline depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (K, magnification, node count, cluster count) and on domain assumptions about superpixel quality, mask availability, label accuracy, and the biological meaning of clusters. None of these are derived from first principles; the marker-mining component additionally assumes that features from one dataset generalize to real tissue categories.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of focused regions K = 4 (ablation: 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16)
    K controls the speed/accuracy tradeoff and is chosen by hand after an ablation on the HCC dataset (§4.5).
  • Local branch magnification factor = 16x (ablated over 8x, 16x, 32x)
    Selected via ablation on HCC; the local branch operates at M/2 magnification (§4.5).
  • Number of superpixel nodes n = 1024
    Set for SLIC segmentation in the global graph; affects graph size and inference speed (§4.1).
  • Number of prototype clusters C = not specified
    The k-means cluster count for the pathological prototype vocabulary is never stated, leaving a tunable parameter that affects feature aggregation and marker visualization (§3.4, §4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SLIC superpixels provide meaningful tissue boundaries suitable for graph nodes across all WSI datasets.
    Used in §3.1.1 and §3.3.1; if superpixels do not align with tissue structures, the graph features and focus regions become less meaningful.
  • domain assumption Lesion area masks or region-level labels are available to supervise the local branch.
    Equation for L_local_CLS in §3.3.3 uses y_gt from masks; the paper only explicitly confirms masks for the three collected datasets, not for public ones.
  • domain assumption The slide-level labels and prognostic follow-up data are accurate.
    All training and evaluation rely on ground truth labels; mislabeled grades or survival outcomes would propagate through the consistency and classification losses.
  • domain assumption K-means clusters of focused features correspond to biologically coherent tissue types.
    The tumor marker mining in §3.6 and §4.3 treats cluster uniqueness as marker evidence, which presupposes that clustering captures biological rather than technical variation.
  • ad hoc to paper Grad-CAM heatmaps and the local branch output are reliable pseudo-labels for the focus predictor.
    The cold-start training in §3.2 depends on these pseudo-labels; there is no independent verification that they localize lesions correctly before the focus predictor matures.
invented entities (1)
  • Pathological prototype vocabulary
    purpose: Cluster centers from k-means applied to local graph node features; used to enforce feature consistency across WSIs and to reconstruct tissue spatial distribution for marker mining.
    These are learned cluster centers with no independent biological or clinical grounding outside the paper; their validity is assessed only through the paper's own reconstructions and pathologist review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SEW: Self-calibration Enhanced Whole Slide Pathology Image Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCAYLHUA

@misc{pith2026241210853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SEW: Self-calibration Enhanced Whole Slide Pathology Image Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCAYLHUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10853}
}
read the original abstract

Pathology images are considered the ``gold standard" for cancer diagnosis and treatment, with gigapixel images providing extensive tissue and cellular information. Existing methods fail to simultaneously extract global structural and local detail features for comprehensive pathology image analysis efficiently. To address these limitations, we propose a self-calibration enhanced framework for whole slide pathology image analysis, comprising three components: a global branch, a focus predictor, and a detailed branch. The global branch initially classifies using the pathological thumbnail, while the focus predictor identifies relevant regions for classification based on the last layer features of the global branch. The detailed extraction branch then assesses whether the magnified regions correspond to the lesion area. Finally, a feature consistency constraint between the global and detail branches ensures that the global branch focuses on the appropriate region and extracts sufficient discriminative features for final identification. These focused discriminative features prove invaluable for uncovering novel prognostic tumor markers from the perspective of feature cluster uniqueness and tissue spatial distribution. Extensive experiment results demonstrate that the proposed framework can rapidly deliver accurate and explainable results for pathological grading and prognosis tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The SEW framework comprises a global branch, a focus predictor, and a detailed extraction branch. The global branch initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of mined tumor markers in colorectal cancer samples: a) The SEW model is employed to extract pathological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The accuracy curve for various magnification rates (8x, 16x, and 32x) with different numbers of focus areas. Branch Focus Back Metrics Glob. Loc. grad q Lcst Acc.(%) Time(s) AUC ✓ 75.21 3.77 0.76 ✓ ✓ ✓ 79.64 9.64 0.82 ✓ ✓ ✓ 83.22 9.55 0.87 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 86.39 10.91 0.88 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Hundredfold accelerating for pathological images diagnosis and prognosis through self-reform critical region focusing

    Xiaotian Yu, Haoming Luo, Jiacong Hu, Xiuming Zhang, Yuexuan Wang, Wenjie Liang, Yijun Bei, Mingli Song, and Zunlei Feng. Hundredfold accelerating for pathological images diagnosis and prognosis through self-reform critical region focusing. In Proceed- ings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 , pages 160...

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Slic superpixels

    Radhakrishna Achanta, Appu Shaji, Kevin Smith, Aurelien Lucchi, Pascal Fua, and Sabine S ¨usstrunk. Slic superpixels. 2010. 4, 5

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Histopathologic image–based deep learning classifier for predicting platinum-based treatment responses in high-grade serous ovarian cancer

    Byungsoo Ahn, Damin Moon, Hyun-Soo Kim, Chung Lee, Nam Hoon Cho, Heung-Kook Choi, Dongmin Kim, Jung-Yun Lee, Eun Ji Nam, Dongju Won, et al. Histopathologic image–based deep learning classifier for predicting platinum-based treatment responses in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nature Communications, 15(1):4253, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Albertina, M

    B. Albertina, M. Watson, C. Holback, R. Jarosz, S. Kirk, Y . Lee, K. Rieger-Christ, and J. Lemmerman. The cancer genome atlas lung adenocarcinoma collection (tcga-luad) (version 4) [data set], 2016. 7

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Artificial 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. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and gleason grading of prostate cancer: the panda challenge. Nature medicine, pages 1–10, 2022. 7

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    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: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, F...

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    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. 2, 8

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Diagnose like a pathologist: Weakly- supervised pathologist-tree network for slide-level immunohistochemical scoring

    Zhen Chen, Jun Zhang, Shuanlong Che, Junzhou Huang, Xiao Han, and Yixuan Yuan. Diagnose like a pathologist: Weakly- supervised pathologist-tree network for slide-level immunohistochemical scoring. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, pages 47–54, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Multiple instance learning with center embeddings for histopathology classification

    Philip Chikontwe, Meejeong Kim, Soo Jeong Nam, Heounjeong Go, and Sang Hyun Park. Multiple instance learning with center embeddings for histopathology classification. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima...

    2020

  2. [9]

    Biomarkers in cancer detection, diagnosis, and prognosis

    Sreyashi Das, Mohan Kumar Dey, Ram Devireddy, and Manas Ranjan Gartia. Biomarkers in cancer detection, diagnosis, and prognosis. Sensors, 24(1):37, 2023. 3

    2023

  3. [10]

    Derivation of prognostic contextual histopathological features from whole-slide images of tumours via graph deep learning

    Yongju Lee, Jeong Hwan Park, Sohee Oh, Kyoungseob Shin, Jiyu Sun, Minsun Jung, Cheol Lee, Hyojin Kim, Jin-Haeng Chung, Kyung Chul Moon, et al. Derivation of prognostic contextual histopathological features from whole-slide images of tumours via graph deep learning. Nature Biom...

    2022

  4. [11]

    Dynamic graph representation 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 representation with knowledge-aware attention for histopathology whole slide image analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Deep learning supported discovery of biomarkers for clinical prognosis of liver cancer

    Junhao Liang, Weisheng Zhang, Jianghui Yang, Meilong Wu, Qionghai Dai, Hongfang Yin, Ying Xiao, and Lingjie Kong. Deep learning supported discovery of biomarkers for clinical prognosis of liver cancer. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(4):408–420, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [13]

    Lingle, B

    W. Lingle, B. J. Erickson, M. L. Zuley, R. Jarosz, E. Bonaccio, J. Filippini, J. M. Net, L. Levi, E. A. Morris, G. G. Figler, P. Elnajjar, S. Kirk, Y . Lee, M. Giger, and N. Gruszauskas. The cancer genome atlas breast invasive carcinoma collection (tcga-brca) (version 3),

  7. [14]

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

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

    2018

  8. [15]

    M. Y . Lu, T. Y . Williamson, D.and Chen, and et al. Data-efficient and weakly supervised computational pathology on whole-slide images. Nature Biomedical Engineering, pages 555–570, 2021. 3, 8

    2021

  9. [16]

    Slidegraph+: Whole slide image level graphs to predict her2 status in breast cancer

    Wenqi Lu, Michael Toss, Muhammad Dawood, Emad Rakha, Nasir Rajpoot, and Fayyaz Minhas. Slidegraph+: Whole slide image level graphs to predict her2 status in breast cancer. Medical Image Analysis, 80:102486, 2022. 3

    2022

  10. [17]

    An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms

    Sebastian Ruder. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747, 2016. 8

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra

    Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision ,

  12. [19]

    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, 3

    2021

  13. [20]

    Tumor markers in clinical practice: General principles and guidelines

    Shekhar Sharma. Tumor markers in clinical practice: General principles and guidelines. Indian journal of medical and paediatric oncology, 30(01):1–8, 2009. 3

    2009

  14. [21]

    Global contextual representation via graph-transformer fusion for hepatocellular carcinoma prognosis in whole-slide images

    Luyu Tang, Songhui Diao, Chao Li, Miaoxia He, Kun Ru, and Wenjian Qin. Global contextual representation via graph-transformer fusion for hepatocellular carcinoma prognosis in whole-slide images. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics , 115:102378,

  15. [22]

    Quadtree attention for vision transformers

    Shitao Tang, Jiahui Zhang, Siyu Zhu, and Ping Tan. Quadtree attention for vision transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 3, 8

    2022

  16. [23]

    Neural image compression for gigapixel histopathology image analysis

    David Tellez, Geert Litjens, Jeroen van der Laak, and Francesco Ciompi. Neural image compression for gigapixel histopathology image analysis. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(2):567–578, 2019. 2, 8

    2019

  17. [24]

    Differen- tiable zooming for multiple instance learning on whole-slide images

    Kevin Thandiackal, Boqi Chen, Pushpak Pati, Guillaume Jaume, Drew FK Williamson, Maria Gabrani, and Orcun Goksel. Differen- tiable zooming for multiple instance learning on whole-slide images. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 699–715. Springer, 2022. 2, 3, 8

    2022

  18. [25]

    Transformer-based biomarker prediction from colorectal cancer histology: A large-scale multicentric study

    Sophia J Wagner, Daniel Reisenb ¨uchler, Nicholas P West, Jan Moritz Niehues, Jiefu Zhu, Sebastian Foersch, Gregory Patrick Veld- huizen, Philip Quirke, Heike I Grabsch, Piet A van den Brandt, et al. Transformer-based biomarker prediction from colorectal cancer histology: A la...

    2023

  19. [26]

    Weakly supervised learning for whole slide lung cancer image classification

    Xi Wang, Hao Chen, Caixia Gan, Huangjing Lin, Qi Dou, Qitao Huang, Muyan Cai, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Weakly supervised learning for whole slide lung cancer image classification. In Medical imaging with deep learning, 2018. 2

    2018

  20. [27]

    Dsnet: A dual-stream framework for weakly-supervised gigapixel pathology image analysis.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(8):2180–2190, 2022

    Tiange Xiang, Yang Song, Chaoyi Zhang, Dongnan Liu, Mei Chen, Fan Zhang, Heng Huang, Lauren O’Donnell, and Weidong Cai. Dsnet: A dual-stream framework for weakly-supervised gigapixel pathology image analysis.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(8):2180–2190, 2022. 2

    2022

  21. [28]

    Automated assessment of necrosis tumor ratio in colorectal cancer using an artificial intelligence-based digital pathology analysis

    Huifen Ye, Yunrui Ye, Yiting Wang, Tong Tong, Su Yao, Yao Xu, Qingru Hu, Yulin Liu, Changhong Liang, Guangyi Wang, et al. Automated assessment of necrosis tumor ratio in colorectal cancer using an artificial intelligence-based digital pathology analysis. Medicine Advances, 1(1...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Predicting lymph node metastasis using histopathological images based on multiple instance learning with deep graph convolution

    Yu Zhao, Fan Yang, Yuqi Fang, Hailing Liu, Niyun Zhou, Jun Zhang, Jiarui Sun, Sen Yang, Bjoern Menze, Xinjuan Fan, et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis using histopathological images based on multiple instance learning with deep graph convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Predicting lymph node metastasis using histopathological images based on multiple instance learning with deep graph convolution

    Yu Zhao, Fan Yang, Yuqi Fang, Hailing Liu, Niyun Zhou, Jun Zhang, Jiarui Sun, Sen Yang, Bjoern Menze, Xinjuan Fan, et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis using histopathological images based on multiple instance learning with deep graph convolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE...

    2020

Pith tools

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