Back

Understanding Human AI Discrepancy in Breast Cancer TIL Assessment: A Multi-Rater and Perceptual Bias Study

Capar, A.; Aloglu, I.; Aker, F.; Ertano, M.; Mese, Y. E.; Ungor, A.; Yildiz, B. E.

2026-06-04 pathology
10.64898/2026.05.29.26354196 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer are one of the most important indicators of the immune response within the tumor microenvironment. They play a particularly significant prognostic and predictive role in triple-negative and HER2-positive subtypes. However, substantial inter-observer variability has been reported in TIL scoring among pathologists, which limits its reliability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI) models and pathologists in TIL scoring and to compare this agreement using different statistical approaches, thereby assessing the potential of AI integration into pathology practice. Materials and Methods: Digitized histopathological images of breast cancer cases were included in the study. Tumor regions annotated by pathologists were evaluated for both stromal TIL percentage and the proportion of stromal tumor area within each ROI, with assessments performed independently by three pathologists and two AI models. Agreement was assessed among pathologists, between pathologists and AI, and between AI models. Statistical analyses included intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Cohen and Fleiss kappa, correlation tests, and Bland-Altman analysis. In addition, categorical agreement was examined using different cut-off values. Results: Inter-pathologist agreement was high, with an ICC of 0.81. In contrast, the global agreement between pathologists and AI models was lower (ICC 0.41). Pairwise comparisons of pathologist-AI agreement yielded substantially lower ICC values (0.12-0.21), although this improved to 0.53 when three pathologists were assessed jointly with a single AI model. The strongest categorical agreement was observed with dichotomized TIL scores ([≤]10% vs. >10%), whereas multi-category classifications were associated with a marked reduction in kappa values. Spearman correlation coefficients between pathologists and AI models ranged from moderate to good ({rho} = 0.48-0.81). Agreement between the two AI models themselves was moderate, with an ICC of 0.64

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.2%
3
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
5
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.4%
6
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
8
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
11
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.8%
14
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
17
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.0%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.0%
25
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
26
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
27
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
28
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
29
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
30
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%