Back

Artificial intelligence-assisted ganglion cell detection in Hirschsprung's disease: A comparative evaluation of two deep learning approaches

Wang, E.; Grenier, K.; Savadjiev, P.; Poenaru, D. D.

2026-06-12 pathology
10.64898/2026.06.11.26354826 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Definitive diagnosis of Hirschsprung's disease (HD) requires pathological identification of enteric ganglion cells. This process is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have the potential to standardize and accelerate this workflow, but no study has determined which AI approach best serves intraoperative HD pathology diagnostics. Method. This study compared the U-Net and You Only Look Once version 26 (YOLO26) frameworks for ganglion cell detection using a single-centre retrospective dataset of 54 whole-slide images (WSIs) from rectal biopsies. WSIs were tiled into 397,731 image patches (128x128 pixels), further partitioned into training (70%), validation (15%), and testing (15%) sets. Models were evaluated on tile- and patient-level diagnostic metrics and processing latency. Results. The U-Net achieved a tile-level sensitivity of 82.9%, showing no statistically significant difference compared to YOLO26 (79.1%; p = 0.097). However, YOLO26 demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in tile-level specificity (96.1% vs. 93.9%; p < 0.001) and reduced mean inference latency (7.64 ms vs. 11.57 ms/tile). At the patient level, both models achieved 100% diagnostic sensitivity. Despite low patient-level specificity (0.0% U-Net; 11.8% YOLO26), the tissue-level diagnostic burden of false positives was 6.00% for U-Net and 3.50% for YOLO26. Conclusion. The U-Net is preferred when nominal gains in sensitivity are prioritized, while the YOLO26 is an alternative that optimizes efficiency and false positive suppression. Both models serve as robust screening filters to augment the pathologist's workflow and should be selected based on workflow requirements. Prospective validation on larger, multi-centre datasets is required before clinical implementation.

Matching journals

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

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.4%
2
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
5
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
14
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
The Journal of Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
19
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.1%
21
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
24
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%