Back

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.

2026-10-11 neurology
10.64898/2026.10.08.26365042 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.