Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775009›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

An open-source platform for structured annotation and computational workflows in digital pathology research.

Luca Lianas, Mauro Del Rio, Luca Pireddu, Oskar Aspegren, Francesca Giunchi, Michelangelo Fiorentino, Simone Leo, Renata Zelic, Per Henrik Vincent, Nicolas Destefanis and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

15 authors.

Luca Lianas *Visual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy. luca.lianas@crs4.it.
Mauro Del Rio *Visual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.
Luca PiredduVisual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.
Oskar AspegrenDepartment of Pathology and Cancer Diagnostics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Francesca GiunchiDepartment of Pathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Michelangelo FiorentinoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Simone LeoVisual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.
Renata ZelicDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per Henrik VincentDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nicolas DestefanisDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.
Daniela ZugnaDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.
Lorenzo RichiardiDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.
Andreas PetterssonDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olof AkreDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Francesca FrexiaVisual and Data-intensive Computing, CRS4 (Center for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia), Pula, Italy.

Funding

Cancerfonden 22 2324 PjFondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS 24818H2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology 825111Ministero della Salute T4-AN-10Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca PON04a2 00557Wellcome Trust 221012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid evolution of digital pathology has enabled large-scale data acquisition, driving sophisticated clinical research and advancing the development of AI-driven tools. These innovations have also revolutionised histopathological slide review, especially the annotation step (i.e. the process of marking specific areas of interest on glass-mounted tissue samples to add relevant clinical information) by digitising the process, enhancing precision and efficiency, and facilitating collaboration. However, currently available open-source annotation tools typically employ single-label approaches that provide a flat representation of whole-slide images (WSI), limiting their ability to capture the complexity of the diagnosis-significant elements in a detailed and structured way. Furthermore, the difficulty of strictly following precise review protocols and lack of provenance tracking during annotation processes can result in high variability and limit reproducibility and reusability of the collected data. In this work we present the CRS4 Digital Pathology Platform (CDPP), an open-source system for research studies that manages WSI collections and focuses on high-quality, structured annotations, gathered according to well-defined protocols. Its main features include: (1) structured, multi-label morphological and clinical image annotation; (2) support for controlled but customisable annotation protocols; (3) dedicated annotation tools to facilitate enhanced accuracy, efficiency and consistency in the annotation process; and (4) workflow-based computational analysis with integrated provenance tracking. We show how the platform has successfully supported three different studies, demonstrating the CDPP's ability to assist pathologists in the generation of high-quality annotated datasets, also suitable for reuse, in the context of digital pathology research.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyImage Processing, Computer-AssistedWorkflowHumansSoftwareAnnotation ProtocolComputational PathologyComputational ProvenanceDigital PathologyHistopathologyWSI Annotation

Identifiers

PMID40775009
PMCPMC12331939

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.