Thomas Conrad

Sweta Banerjee, Timo Gosch, Sara Hester et al.

The annotation of large scale histopathology image datasets remains a major bottleneck in developing robust deep learning models for clinically relevant tasks, such as mitotic figure classification. Folder-based annotation workflows are usually slow, fatiguing, and difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce SWipeable ANnotations (SWAN), an open-source, MIT-licensed web application that enables intuitive image patch classification using a swiping gesture. SWAN supports both desktop and mobile platforms, offers real-time metadata capture, and allows flexible mapping of swipe gestures to class labels. In a pilot study with four pathologists annotating 600 mitotic figure image patches, we compared SWAN against a traditional folder-sorting workflow. SWAN enabled rapid annotations with pairwise percent agreement ranging from 86.52% to 93.68% (Cohen's Kappa = 0.61-0.80), while for the folder-based method, the pairwise percent agreement ranged from 86.98% to 91.32% (Cohen's Kappa = 0.63-0.75) for the task of classifying atypical versus normal mitotic figures, demonstrating high consistency between annotators and comparable performance. Participants rated the tool as highly usable and appreciated the ability to annotate on mobile devices. These results suggest that SWAN can accelerate image annotation while maintaining annotation quality, offering a scalable and user-friendly alternative to conventional workflows.

Emely Rosbach, Jonas Ammeling, Jonathan Ganz et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision support systems can improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, collaboration between human experts and AI may introduce cognitive biases such as automation and anchoring bias, where users adopt system predictions blindly or are disproportionately influenced by AI advice, even when inaccurate. These effects may be amplified under time pressure, common in routine pathology, or shaped by individual user characteristics. We conducted an online experiment in which pathology experts (n = 28) estimated tumor cell percentages: once independently and once with AI support. A subset of estimations in each condition was performed under time strain. Overall, AI assistance improved diagnostic performance but introduced a 7% automation bias rate, defined as accepted negative consultations where previously correct independent judgments were overturned by incorrect AI advice. While time pressure did not increase the frequency of automation bias, it appeared to intensify its severity, reflected in stronger performance declines associated with increased AI reliance under cognitive load. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) simulating weighted averaging showed a statistically significant positive coefficient for AI advice, indicating moderate anchoring on system output. This effect increased under time pressure, suggesting anchoring bias becomes more pronounced when cognitive resources are limited. A second LMM assessing automation reliance, a proxy for automation and anchoring bias, showed that professional experience and self-efficacy were associated with lower dependence on AI, whereas higher confidence during AI-assisted decisions was tied to increased AI reliance. These findings highlight the dual nature of AI integration in clinical workflows: improving performance while introducing risks of bias-driven diagnostic errors.

Sweta Banerjee, Viktoria Weiss, Taryn A. Donovan et al.

Atypical mitosis marks a deviation in the cell division process that has been shown be an independent prognostic marker for tumor malignancy. However, atypical mitosis classification remains challenging due to low prevalence, at times subtle morphological differences from normal mitotic figures, low inter-rater agreement among pathologists, and class imbalance in datasets. Building on the Atypical Mitosis dataset for Breast Cancer (AMi-Br), this study presents a comprehensive benchmark comparing deep learning approaches for automated atypical mitotic figure (AMF) classification, including end-to-end trained deep learning models, foundation models with linear probing, and foundation models fine-tuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA). For rigorous evaluation, we further introduce two new held-out AMF datasets - AtNorM-Br, a dataset of mitotic figures from the TCGA breast cancer cohort, and AtNorM-MD, a multi-domain dataset of mitotic figures from a subset of the MIDOG++ training set. We found average balanced accuracy values of up to 0.8135, 0.7788, and 0.7723 on the in-domain AMi-Br and the out-of-domain AtNorm-Br and AtNorM-MD datasets, respectively. Our work shows that atypical mitotic figure classification, while being a challenging problem, can be effectively addressed through the use of recent advances in transfer learning and model fine-tuning techniques. We make all code and data used in this paper available in this github repository: https://github.com/DeepMicroscopy/AMi-Br_Benchmark.

Christof A. Bertram, Viktoria Weiss, Taryn A. Donovan et al.

Assessment of the density of mitotic figures (MFs) in histologic tumor sections is an important prognostic marker for many tumor types, including breast cancer. Recently, it has been reported in multiple works that the quantity of MFs with an atypical morphology (atypical MFs, AMFs) might be an independent prognostic criterion for breast cancer. AMFs are an indicator of mutations in the genes regulating the cell cycle and can lead to aberrant chromosome constitution (aneuploidy) of the tumor cells. To facilitate further research on this topic using pattern recognition, we present the first ever publicly available dataset of atypical and normal MFs (AMi-Br). For this, we utilized two of the most popular MF datasets (MIDOG 2021 and TUPAC) and subclassified all MFs using a three expert majority vote. Our final dataset consists of 3,720 MFs, split into 832 AMFs (22.4%) and 2,888 normal MFs (77.6%) across all 223 tumor cases in the combined set. We provide baseline classification experiments to investigate the consistency of the dataset, using a Monte Carlo cross-validation and different strategies to combat class imbalance. We found an averaged balanced accuracy of up to 0.806 when using a patch-level data set split, and up to 0.713 when using a patient-level split.