Back

Accuracy of Foundation AI Models for Hepatic Macrovesicular Steatosis Quantification in Frozen Sections

Koga, S.; Guda, A.; Wang, Y.; Sahni, A.; Wu, J.; Rosen, A.; Nield, J.; Nandish, N.; Patel, K.; Goldman, H.; Rajapakse, C.; Walle, S.; Kristen, S.; Tondon, R.; Alipour, Z.

2025-09-17 pathology
10.1101/2025.09.16.25335833
Show abstract

IntroductionAccurate intraoperative assessment of macrovesicular steatosis in donor liver biopsies is critical for transplantation decisions but is often limited by inter-observer variability and freezing artifacts that can obscure histological details. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a potential solution for standardized and reproducible evaluation. To evaluate the diagnostic performance of two self-supervised learning (SSL)-based foundation models, Prov-GigaPath and UNI, for classifying macrovesicular steatosis in frozen liver biopsy sections, compared with assessments by surgical pathologists. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 131 frozen liver biopsy specimens from 68 donors collected between November 2022 and September 2024. Slides were digitized into whole-slide images, tiled into patches, and used to extract embeddings with Prov-GigaPath and UNI; slide-level classifiers were then trained and tested. Intraoperative diagnoses by on-call surgical pathologists were compared with ground truth determined from independent reviews of permanent sections by two liver pathologists. Accuracy was evaluated for both five-category classification and a clinically significant binary threshold (<30% vs. [&ge;]30%). ResultsFor binary classification, Prov-GigaPath achieved 96.4% accuracy, UNI 85.7%, and surgical pathologists 84.0% (P = .22). In five-category classification, accuracies were lower: Prov-GigaPath 57.1%, UNI 50.0%, and pathologists 58.7% (P = .70). Misclassification primarily occurred in intermediate categories (5%-<30% steatosis). ConclusionsSSL-based foundation models performed comparably to surgical pathologists in classifying macrovesicular steatosis, at the clinically relevant <30% vs. [&ge;]30% threshold. These findings support the potential role of AI in standardizing intraoperative evaluation of donor liver biopsies; however, the small sample size limits generalizability and requires validation in larger, balanced cohorts.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
19.6%
2
The American Journal of Pathology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
14.4%
3
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 53%
8.7%
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.3%
5.4%
5
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 0.2%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 19%
3.4%
7
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 46%
3.2%
8
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 2%
2.8%
9
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 6%
2.8%
10
American Journal of Transplantation
based on 13 papers
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
based on 19 papers
Top 0.8%
2.0%
12
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 3%
1.8%
13
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 39%
1.8%
14
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 11%
1.5%
15
AIDS
based on 25 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
16
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 13%
0.9%
17
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 14%
0.9%
18
Clinical and Translational Science
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
19
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
0.9%
20
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 10%
0.9%
21
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
22
The Lancet
based on 16 papers
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Transfusion
based on 14 papers
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Gastroenterology
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 22%
0.5%
28
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.5%
29
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 7%
0.5%
30
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 8%
0.5%