自动检测病理切片中的六大常见伪影,提升数字病理分析可靠性
HistoART: Histopathology Artifact Detection and Reporting Tool
- 用三类方法检测切片中的组织折叠、气泡等六类伪影
- 基于大模型的方法在10万+图像块上达到0.995的检测准确率
- 生成可视化报告,帮助病理医生快速识别质量问题
在现代癌症诊断中,全切片成像(WSI)被广泛用于数字化组织样本以进行高分辨率检查;然而,根据癌症类型和临床背景,液体活检和分子检测也常被使用。尽管WSI已推动数字病理学的自动化与精确分析,但其仍易受制片和扫描过程引入的伪影影响,可能损害后续图像分析。为此,我们提出并比较了三种针对WSI的稳健伪影检测方法:(1) 基于微调统一神经图像(UNI)架构的础模型方法(FMA),(2) 基于ResNet50骨干网络的深度学习方法(DLA),(3) 基于手工特征(纹理、颜色、频域指标)的知识驱动方法(KBA)。三类方法分别针对六种常见伪影:组织折叠、离焦区域、气泡、组织损伤、标记痕迹和血液污染。评估基于来自多个机构的多种扫描仪(Hamamatsu、Philips、Leica Aperio AT2)的50,000+图像块。FMA在像素级检测上取得最高平均受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)为0.995(95%置信区间[0.994, 0.995]),优于基于ResNet50的方法(AUROC: 0.977,95% CI [0.977, 0.978])和知识基方法(AUROC: 0.940,95% CI [0.933, 0.946])。为进一步转化检测结果为可操作洞察,我们开发了一种质量评分卡,用于量化高质量图像块并可视化伪影分布。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
In modern cancer diagnostics, Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) is widely used to digitize tissue specimens for detailed, high-resolution examination; however, other diagnostic approaches, such as liquid biopsy and molecular testing, are also utilized based on the cancer type and clinical context. While WSI has revolutionized digital histopathology by enabling automated, precise analysis, it remains vulnerable to artifacts introduced during slide preparation and scanning. These artifacts can compromise downstream image analysis. To address this challenge, we propose and compare three robust artifact detection approaches for WSIs: (1) a foundation model-based approach (FMA) using a fine-tuned Unified Neural Image (UNI) architecture, (2) a deep learning approach (DLA) built on a ResNet50 backbone, and (3) a knowledge-based approach (KBA) leveraging handcrafted features from texture, color, and frequency-based metrics. The methods target six common artifact types: tissue folds, out-of-focus regions, air bubbles, tissue damage, marker traces, and blood contamination. Evaluations were conducted on 50,000+ image patches from diverse scanners (Hamamatsu, Philips, Leica Aperio AT2) across multiple sites. The FMA achieved the highest patch-wise AUROC of 0.995 (95% CI [0.994, 0.995]), outperforming the ResNet50-based method (AUROC: 0.977, 95% CI [0.977, 0.978]) and the KBA (AUROC: 0.940, 95% CI [0.933, 0.946]). To translate detection into actionable insights, we developed a quality report scorecard that quantifies high-quality patches and visualizes artifact distributions.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。