PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 15, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology

SBSol Erika BomanNMNita MulliqiABAnders Blilie

Key Points

  • This study aims to investigate how different tissue detection methods affect the performance of AI in diagnosing prostate cancer.
  • Trained AI models for Gleason grading using whole slide images with thresholding and UNet++ tissue detection algorithms.
  • Utilized 33,823 WSIs for training and 70,524 WSIs from 13 clinical sites for testing the AI model.
  • Compared performance between classical and AI-based tissue detection approaches.
  • No significant difference in Gleason grading performance was observed between the two detection algorithms.
  • Transitioning from thresholding to AI-based detection reduced undetected tissue samples from 118 (0.43%) to 24 (0.09%).
  • Clinically significant grading variations were detected in 3.5% of malignant slides, emphasizing the importance of tissue detection.

Abstract

Abstract Tissue detection is a crucial first step in most digital pathology applications. By applying image segmentation algorithms, all tissue is delineated and background discarded from further analyses, improving both computational efficiency and analytical results. Details of the segmentation algorithm are rarely reported, and there is a lack of studies investigating the downstream effects of a poor segmentation algorithm. Disregarding tissue detection quality could jeopardize patient safety if diagnostically relevant parts of the specimen are excluded from analysis in clinical applications. This study aims to determine whether performance of downstream tasks is sensitive to the tissue detection method, and to compare the performance of a classical and an AI-based tissue detection approach. To this end, we trained an AI model for Gleason grading of prostate cancer in whole slide images (WSIs) using two different tissue detection algorithms: thresholding (classical) and UNet++ (AI). A total of 33,823 WSIs scanned on seven digital pathology scanners were used to train the segmentation AI model. The downstream Gleason grading algorithm was trained and tested using 70,524 WSIs from 13 clinical sites scanned on 13 different scanners. On the slides where tissue could be detected by both algorithms, no significant difference in overall Gleason grading performance was observed. There was a decrease from 118 (0.43%) to 24 (0.09%) fully undetected tissue samples when switching from thresholding-based tissue detection to AI-based, suggesting this AI model may be more reliable than the classical model for avoiding total failures on slides with unusual appearance. Moreover, tissue detection dependent clinically significant variations in AI grading were observed in 3.5% of malignant slides, highlighting the role of tissue detection for optimal clinical performance of diagnostic AI.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Boman et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a06b83de7dec685947aac6ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-52148-9
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Retrospective Validation of a Resource-Aware Assistive AI Tool for Screening Prostate Needle Biopsies and Classifying Prostate Adenocarcinoma into ISUP Grade Groups2026
  2. 2Study Protocol: Development and Retrospective Validation of an Artificial Intelligence System for Diagnostic Assessment of Prostate Biopsies2024
  3. 3Digital pathology‐based artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate cancer: inside the ‘black box’2026
  4. 4Artificial intelligence for detection, grading, and prognostication in prostate cancer pathology: A scoping review.2026
  5. 5Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer diagnosis: A systematic review of advances in gleason grade and PI-RADS classification2025