Klaus Kraywinkel

Jan-Philipp Redlich, Friedrich Feuerhake, Stefan Nikolin et al.

Glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype (GBM-IDHwt) is the most common malignant brain tumor. Histomorphology is a crucial component of the integrated diagnosis of GBM-IDHwt. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods have shown promise to extract additional prognostic information from histological whole-slide images (WSI) of hematoxylin and eosin-stained glioblastoma tissue. Here, we present an explainable AI-based method to support systematic interpretation of histomorphological features associated with survival. It combines an explainable multiple instance learning (MIL) architecture with a sparse autoencoder (SAE) to relate human-interpretable visual patterns of tissue to survival. The MIL architecture directly identifies prognosis-relevant image tiles and the SAE maps these tiles post-hoc to visual patterns. The MIL method was trained and evaluated using a new real-world dataset that comprised 720 GBM-IDHwt cases from three hospitals and four cancer registries in Germany. The SAE was trained using 1878 WSIs of glioblastoma from five independent public data collections. Despite the many factors influencing survival time, our method showed some ability to discriminate between patients living less than 180 days or more than 360 days solely based on histomorphology (AUC: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.63-0.72). Cox proportional hazards regression confirmed a significant difference in survival time between the predicted groups after adjustment for established prognostic factors (hazard ratio: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.26-1.72). Our method identified multiple interpretable visual patterns associated with survival. Three neuropathologists separately found that 21 of the 24 most strongly associated patterns could be clearly attributed to seven histomorphological categories. Necrosis and hemorrhage appeared to be associated with shorter survival while highly cellular tumor areas were associated with longer survival.

Jean-Baptiste Escudié, Benjamin Barnes, Stefan Meisegeier et al.

There is no consensus in the field of synthetic data on concise metrics for quality evaluations or benchmarks on large health datasets, such as historical epidemiological data. This study presents an evaluation of seven recent models from major machine learning families. The models were evaluated using four different datasets, each with a distinct scale. To ensure a fair comparison, we systematically tuned the hyperparameters of each model for each dataset. We propose a methodology for evaluating the fidelity of synthesized joint distributions, aligning metrics with visualization on a single plot. This method is applicable to any dataset and is complemented by a domain-specific analysis of the German Cancer Registries' epidemiological dataset. The analysis reveals the challenges models face in strictly adhering to the medical domain. We hope this approach will serve as a foundational framework for guiding the selection of synthesizers and remain accessible to all stakeholders involved in releasing synthetic datasets.