RESUMO
AIMS: One of the major drivers of the adoption of digital pathology in clinical practice is the possibility of introducing digital image analysis (DIA) to assist with diagnostic tasks. This offers potential increases in accuracy, reproducibility, and efficiency. Whereas stand-alone DIA has great potential benefit for research, little is known about the effect of DIA assistance in clinical use. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical use characteristics of a DIA application for Ki67 proliferation assessment. Specifically, the human-in-the-loop interplay between DIA and pathologists was studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively investigated breast cancer Ki67 areas assessed with human-in-the-loop DIA and compared them with visual and automatic approaches. The results, expressed as standard deviation of the error in the Ki67 index, showed that visual estimation ('eyeballing') (14.9 percentage points) performed significantly worse (P < 0.05) than DIA alone (7.2 percentage points) and DIA with human-in-the-loop corrections (6.9 percentage points). At the overall level, no improvement resulting from the addition of human-in-the-loop corrections to the automatic DIA results could be seen. For individual cases, however, human-in-the-loop corrections could address major DIA errors in terms of poor thresholding of faint staining and incorrect tumour-stroma separation. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that the primary value of human-in-the-loop corrections is to address major weaknesses of a DIA application, rather than fine-tuning the DIA quantifications.
