AI-Assisted Tissue-Based Antibody Interpretation in Autoimmune Encephalitis: Prospective Validation and Reader Study
Cao, Z.; Xie, D.; Zou, S.; Li, D.; Martinez-Martinez, P.; Zong, S.; Zhang, Z.
Show abstract
Tissue-based assays provide broad screening for neural autoantibodies but remain vulnerable to technical and reader-dependent variability. We evaluated an integrated workflow combining automated 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tissue-based assay processing, digital whole-slide imaging, and interpretable deep learning. Model development used 2,357 retrospective serum and cerebrospinal fluid images referred from more than 80 institutions and processed in a centralized laboratory, with reference labels established by expert-consensus tissue-based assay interpretation. A prospective validation cohort included 200 images from 200 unique patients (154 positive and 46 negative; 100 serum and 100 cerebrospinal fluid). The same images were evaluated by two expert and two novice readers in a fixed-order two-round study, with unaided interpretation followed by artificial-intelligence-assisted interpretation after a washout of at least two weeks. The standalone binary classifier achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.922, accuracy of 86.5%, sensitivity of 85.7%, and specificity of 89.1% in prospective validation. Pooled reader accuracy was 90.4% in the unaided round and 97.4% in the artificial-intelligence-assisted round (McNemar P < 0.001), with specificity of 82.6% and 99.5%, respectively. Novice-reader accuracy was 83.3% unaided and 96.5% with artificial-intelligence assistance (P < 0.001), approaching unaided expert accuracy of 97.5%. Among tissue-based-assay-positive cases, reader accuracy for cytoplasmic/nuclear antigen-associated versus neural surface antigen-associated staining-pattern subclassification was 88.8% unaided and 94.0% with artificial-intelligence assistance (P < 0.001). These findings support further multicentre, cross-platform evaluation of artificial-intelligence-assisted neural autoantibody tissue interpretation.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A point-of-care lateral flow assay for neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 90%
- Discordant humoral and T cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in people with multiple sclerosis on anti-CD20 therapy 87%
- Dynamics of humoral and cellular immune responses after homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cellular and humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection in multiple sclerosis patients on ocrelizumab and other disease-modifying therapies: a multi-ethnic observational study 90%
- Long term follow-up in anti-contactin-1 autoimmune nodopathy 89%
- COVID-19 vaccine response in people with multiple sclerosis 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a sensitive trial-ready poly(GP) CSF biomarker assay for C9orf72-associated frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 89%
- Neuroinflammation predicts disease progression in progressive supranuclear palsy 88%
- Serum neurofilament light chain predicts long-term prognosis in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Minimal Correlation but Complementary Diagnostic Utility for Plasma Cell-free RNA and Proteins 88%
- B cell response six months after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in people living with HIV under antiretroviral therapy 88%
- The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 increases over 5 months in patients with anosmia/dysgeusia 87%
"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.