Back

Large-Scale Validation Study of an Improved Semi-Autonomous Urine Cytology Assessment Tool: AutoParis-X

Levy, J.; Chan, N.; Marotti, J.; Kerr, D.; Gutmann, E.; Glass, R.; Dodge, C.; Suriawinata, A.; Christensen, B.; Liu, X.; Vaickus, L.

2023-03-02 pathology
10.1101/2023.03.01.23286639 medRxiv
Show abstract

Adopting a computational approach for the assessment of urine cytology specimens has the potential to improve the efficiency, accuracy and reliability of bladder cancer screening, which has heretofore relied on semi-subjective manual assessment methods. As rigorous, quantitative criteria and guidelines have been introduced for improving screening practices, e.g., The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (TPS), algorithms to emulate semi-autonomous diagnostic decision-making have lagged behind, in part due to the complex and nuanced nature of urine cytology reporting. In this study, we report on a deep learning tool, AutoParis-X, which can facilitate rapid semi-autonomous examination of urine cytology specimens. Through a large-scale retrospective validation study, results indicate that AutoParis-X can accurately determine urothelial cell atypia and aggregate a wide-variety of cell and cluster-related information across a slide to yield an Atypia Burden Score (ABS) that correlates closely with overall specimen atypia, predictive of TPS diagnostic categories. Importantly, this approach accounts for challenges associated with assessment of overlapping cell cluster borders, which improved the ability to predict specimen atypia and accurately estimate the nuclear-to-cytoplasm (NC) ratio for cells in these clusters. We developed an interactive web application that is publicly available and open-source, which features a simple, easy-to-use display for examining urine cytology whole-slide images (WSI) and determining the atypia level of specific cells, flagging the most abnormal cells for pathologist review. The accuracy of AutoParis-X (and other semi-automated digital pathology systems) indicates that these technologies are approaching clinical readiness and necessitates full evaluation of these algorithms via head-to-head clinical trials.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.4%
2
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.4%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.5%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 21%
5.0%
5
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
6
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
7
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
8
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
11
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
13
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
14
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
16
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
24
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.5%