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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-05-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-52148-9
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

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

Kristina Hotakainen, Roman Łowicki, J. Asenjo, Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen et al.
Scientific Reports
AI in cancer detection
article

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

Kristina Hotakainen, Roman Łowicki, J. Asenjo, Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen, Nita Mulliqi, Marcin Braun, Paolo Libretti, Sol Erika Boman, Kimmo Kartasalo, Kelvin Szolnoky, Anders Blilie, Benedicte Parm Ulhøi, Marcello Gambacorta, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen, Emiel A.M. Janssen, Lars Egevad, Einar Gudlaugsson, Xiaoyi Ji, Radzislaw Kordek, Päivi Väre, Svein R. Kjosavik
article en

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.

Scientific ReportsVol. 16(1)
Griffith University (AU), University of Helsinki (FI), Aarhus University (DK), Stavanger University Hospital (NO), Science for Life Laboratory (SE), Aarhus University Hospital (DK), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Synapse (Spain) (ES), Medical University of Lodz (PL), TeliaSonera (Finland) (FI), Kemira (Finland) (FI), University of Bergen (NO), University of Stavanger (NO)
Karolinska Institutet
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
AI in cancer detection
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.