The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: Not significant for overall Gleason grading performance

• Effect Size: Reduction in fully undetected tissue samples from 118 (0.43%) to 24 (0.09%)

• Primary Outcome: Gleason grading performance comparison between tissue detection methods

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: AI-based detection prevented tissue detection failure in 94 additional cases (0.34% absolute reduction)

• Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

High - both methods readily implementable in existing digital pathology workflows Relevant to Australian pathology services using digital pathology platforms; aligns with RCPA digital pathology guidelines and TGA software classification requirements Patients undergoing prostate cancer diagnosis via digital pathology in routine clinical practice

Abstract

Tissue detection is a crucial first step in most digital pathology applications. By applying image segmentation algorithms, all tissue is delineated and background discarded from further analyses, improving both computational efficiency and analytical results. Details of the segmentation algorithm are rarely reported, and there is a lack of studies investigating the downstream effects of a poor segmentation algorithm. Disregarding tissue detection quality could jeopardize patient safety if diagnostically relevant parts of the specimen are excluded from analysis in clinical applications. This study aims to determine whether performance of downstream tasks is sensitive to the tissue detection method, and to compare the performance of a classical and an AI-based tissue detection approach. To this end, we trained an AI model for Gleason grading of prostate cancer in whole slide images (WSIs) using two different tissue detection algorithms: thresholding (classical) and UNet++ (AI). A total of 33,823 WSIs scanned on seven digital pathology scanners were used to train the segmentation AI model. The downstream Gleason grading algorithm was trained and tested using 70,524 WSIs from 13 clinical sites scanned on 13 different scanners. On the slides where tissue could be detected by both algorithms, no significant difference in overall Gleason grading performance was observed. There was a decrease from 118 (0.43%) to 24 (0.09%) fully undetected tissue samples when switching from thresholding-based tissue detection to AI-based, suggesting this AI model may be more reliable than the classical model for avoiding total failures on slides with unusual appearance. Moreover, tissue detection dependent clinically significant variations in AI grading were observed in 3.5% of malignant slides, highlighting the role of tissue detection for optimal clinical performance of diagnostic AI.

References

1. 1.Boman, S. E., Mulliqi, N., Blilie, A., Ji, X., Szolnoky, K., Gudlaugsson, E., Janssen, E. A. M., Kjosavik, S. R., Asenjo, J., Gambacorta, M., Libretti, P., Braun, M., Kordek, R., Łowicki, R., Hotakainen, K., Väre, P., Pedersen, B. G., Sørensen, K. D., Ulhøi, B. P., Egevad, L., & Kartasalo, K. (2026). The impact of tissue detection on diagnostic artificial intelligence algorithms in prostate digital pathology. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.20129