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.
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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A tool for federated training of segmentation models on whole slide images. 95%
- Independent assessment of a deep learning system for lymph node metastasis detection on the Augmented Reality Microscope 95%
- Deep learning accurately quantifies plasma cell percentages on CD138-stained bone marrow samples 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Attention-based whole-slide image compression achieves pathologist-level pre-screening of multi-organ routine histopathology biopsies 96%
- Tissue contamination challenges the credibility of machine learning models in real world digital pathology 95%
- Genomic Characterization of Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers Using Deep Learning 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- tUbe net: a generalisable deep learning tool for 3D vessel segmentation 95%
- Deep Learning Enhances Detection of Extracapsular Extension in Prostate Cancer from mpMRI of 1001 Patients 94%
- ImmuNet: A Segmentation-Free Machine Learning Pipeline for Immune Landscape Phenotyping in Tumors by Muliplex Imaging 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- FalseColor-Python: a rapid intensity-leveling and digital-staining package for fluorescence-based slide-free digital pathology 93%
- Deep Learning Classification of Lipid Droplets in Quantitative Phase Images 93%
- Fine-tuning TrailMap: The utility of transfer learning to improve the performance of deep learning in axon segmentation of light-sheet microscopy images 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.