Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33204028›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2021

Deep learning in cancer pathology: a new generation of clinical biomarkers.

Amelie Echle, Niklas Timon Rindtorff, Titus Josef Brinker, Tom Luedde, Alexander Thomas Pearson, Jakob Nikolas Kather

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 316 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
316citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

316 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Digital Pathology in Dermatology - Current Status, Applications and Perspectives.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Translational cancer research · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

256 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amelie EchleDepartment of Medicine III, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0789-9509
Niklas Timon RindtorffGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Titus Josef BrinkerNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Tom LueddeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Alexander Thomas PearsonSection of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jakob Nikolas KatherDepartment of Medicine III, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. jkather@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3730-5348

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) SFB CRC1382/P01, SFB-TRR57/P06, LU 1360/3-1Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid) 70113864EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (H2020 Excellent Science - European Research Council) 771083RWTH Aachen University (Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen) 691906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical workflows in oncology rely on predictive and prognostic molecular biomarkers. However, the growing number of these complex biomarkers tends to increase the cost and time for decision-making in routine daily oncology practice; furthermore, biomarkers often require tumour tissue on top of routine diagnostic material. Nevertheless, routinely available tumour tissue contains an abundance of clinically relevant information that is currently not fully exploited. Advances in deep learning (DL), an artificial intelligence (AI) technology, have enabled the extraction of previously hidden information directly from routine histology images of cancer, providing potentially clinically useful information. Here, we outline emerging concepts of how DL can extract biomarkers directly from histology images and summarise studies of basic and advanced image analysis for cancer histology. Basic image analysis tasks include detection, grading and subtyping of tumour tissue in histology images; they are aimed at automating pathology workflows and consequently do not immediately translate into clinical decisions. Exceeding such basic approaches, DL has also been used for advanced image analysis tasks, which have the potential of directly affecting clinical decision-making processes. These advanced approaches include inference of molecular features, prediction of survival and end-to-end prediction of therapy response. Predictions made by such DL systems could simplify and enrich clinical decision-making, but require rigorous external validation in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBiomarkers, TumorDecision MakingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeoplasmsPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID33204028
PMCPMC7884739

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.