<scp>HISTAI</scp> : a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson

The application of artificial intelligence in computational pathology depends on both robust algorithms and high-quality, clinically reliable data. Progress in this field has been limited by the scarcity of large, diverse, and well-validated whole slide image (WSI) datasets. To address this gap, HISTAI introduced an open-source resource comprising over 112,000 WSIs across multiple organ systems with associated clinical metadata. Here, we present a pathologist-led evaluation of label accuracy, metadata completeness, and dataset composition across 328 selected cases from this resource. Although HISTAI reports 47,279 cases, we identified only 44,564 unique cases after accounting for missing entries and duplicate records. Basic demographic information, including age and sex, was available for only 55% of cases. Dataset composition was uneven, with dermatopathology accounting for 47.1% of cases and gastrointestinal pathology for 24.0%; however, primary specialty was explicitly reported for only 39.6% of cases, obscuring this imbalance within the provided metadata. Notably, clinical ground truth is recorded in the Conclusion column. Concordance between the dataset's Conclusion and Diagnosis fields was observed in only 20.7% of cases, while 27.1% contained conflicting diagnoses. In a focused review of 198 cases, 30.3% were found to contain unclear or ambiguous diagnostic conclusions, including eight cases in which the diagnosis was incorrect. Assessment of molecular annotation revealed that only 18.9% of analyzed lung and colorectal cancer cases included molecular information. Furthermore, among adult-type diffuse gliomas, none of the 55 cases met current World Health Organisation Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System 5th Edition (WHO CNS5) diagnostic criteria, with IDH mutation status reported in only 15 cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial ambiguities in ground-truth labeling, incomplete molecular annotation, and limited documentation of dataset provenance and ethical oversight. While HISTAI represents a valuable open-source resource, its effective and responsible use requires careful clinical validation and close collaboration between computational researchers and pathologists.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research
Published
2026-04-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/2056-4538.70089
Primary Topic
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

HISTAI : a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson

Katherine Hewitt, Nic G. Reitsam, Qinghe Zeng, Sebastian Foersch et al.
The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
article

HISTAI : a valuable dataset with a valuable lesson

Katherine Hewitt, Nic G. Reitsam, Qinghe Zeng, Sebastian Foersch, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Ramona Erber
article en

Abstract

The application of artificial intelligence in computational pathology depends on both robust algorithms and high-quality, clinically reliable data. Progress in this field has been limited by the scarcity of large, diverse, and well-validated whole slide image (WSI) datasets. To address this gap, HISTAI introduced an open-source resource comprising over 112,000 WSIs across multiple organ systems with associated clinical metadata. Here, we present a pathologist-led evaluation of label accuracy, metadata completeness, and dataset composition across 328 selected cases from this resource. Although HISTAI reports 47,279 cases, we identified only 44,564 unique cases after accounting for missing entries and duplicate records. Basic demographic information, including age and sex, was available for only 55% of cases. Dataset composition was uneven, with dermatopathology accounting for 47.1% of cases and gastrointestinal pathology for 24.0%; however, primary specialty was explicitly reported for only 39.6% of cases, obscuring this imbalance within the provided metadata. Notably, clinical ground truth is recorded in the Conclusion column. Concordance between the dataset's Conclusion and Diagnosis fields was observed in only 20.7% of cases, while 27.1% contained conflicting diagnoses. In a focused review of 198 cases, 30.3% were found to contain unclear or ambiguous diagnostic conclusions, including eight cases in which the diagnosis was incorrect. Assessment of molecular annotation revealed that only 18.9% of analyzed lung and colorectal cancer cases included molecular information. Furthermore, among adult-type diffuse gliomas, none of the 55 cases met current World Health Organisation Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System 5th Edition (WHO CNS5) diagnostic criteria, with IDH mutation status reported in only 15 cases. Together, these findings highlight substantial ambiguities in ground-truth labeling, incomplete molecular annotation, and limited documentation of dataset provenance and ethical oversight. While HISTAI represents a valuable open-source resource, its effective and responsible use requires careful clinical validation and close collaboration between computational researchers and pathologists.

The Journal of Pathology Clinical ResearchVol. 12(3)
Technische Hochschule Augsburg (DE), University of Augsburg (DE), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Heidelberg University (DE), St James's University Hospital (GB), University Hospital Augsburg (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (DE), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), National Center for Tumor Diseases (DE), University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE), University of Regensburg (DE)
Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss, European Research Council, HORIZON EUROPE Reforming and enhancing the European Research and Innovation system, German Academic Exchange Service
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.