Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

CGC-Net: Cell Graph Convolutional Network for Grading of Colorectal Cancer Histology Images

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that colorectal cancer grading is more accurate when the entire tissue is modeled as a graph of cell nuclei rather than as small image patches, reporting 97% image-level accuracy on a large CRC dataset.

desk verdict Novel graph-based grading framework worth a serious look, but the 97% claim rests on an unvalidated segmentation step that needs addressing. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01068 v1 pith:K7JTPBG5 submitted 2019-09-03 eess.IV cs.CV

Yanning Zhou , Simon Graham , Navid Alemi Koohbanani , Muhammad Shaban , Pheng-Ann Heng , Nasir Rajpoot This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords colorectalcancergradingcellgraphsgraphconvolutionalnetworkshistologyimageclassificationnuclearinstancesegmentationAdaptiveSagetissuemicro-environmentwholeslideimages
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that colorectal cancer (CRC) grading, which depends on the degree of gland formation, can be done more accurately by modeling the entire tissue micro-architecture as a graph rather than by classifying small image patches. It converts large histology images into cell graphs in which each nucleus is a node, edges connect nearby nuclei, and each node carries handcrafted nuclear appearance and shape features plus spatial coordinates. A graph convolutional network called CGC-Net then learns a hierarchy of node embeddings, using a new Adaptive GraphSage module that fuses multi-hop neighbor information with data-driven attention weights and a graph clustering module that coarsens the graph. On a dataset of 139 CRC images, the method reports 97.00±1.10% image-level accuracy, above the 95.70±3.04% of the best competing context-aware patch-based CNN, while using images about 16 times larger than typical patch-based inputs. If correct, this suggests that cell-level organization itself carries much of the diagnostic signal for CRC grade.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cell graph itself: nuclei become nodes, edges encode potential cellular interactions through a distance threshold and k-nearest-neighbor rule, and each node carries seventeen nuclear descriptors (intensity statistics, GLCM texture, shape, orientation) plus coordinates. On top of this, Adaptive GraphSage is the central new mechanism: it stacks k graph convolutions, feeds the multi-level node embeddings through a bidirectional LSTM, and uses softmax attention to weight each level, so each node fuses local and broader context in a data-driven way. The graph clustering module, adapted from differentiable pooling, generates assignment matrices to coarsen the graph hierarchically, and a farthest-point-plus-random sampling strategy prunes dense nuclear regions while preserving sparse gland structure. This combination is what lets the network classify a roughly 16 times larger field of view than patch-based methods at cell-level resolution.

What would settle it

Run the nuclear segmentation network on the 20× CRC grading images, compare its masks against manual nucleus annotations, and compute detection or segmentation F1; if F1 is low, the node features and edges are unreliable. A cleaner test is to re-run CGC-Net with manually annotated nuclei and check whether the 97.00% image-level accuracy changes materially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that colorectal cancer grade can be read from a graph representation of the tissue's cells. Each whole-slide-derived image is reduced to a cell graph whose nodes are nuclei described by seventeen appearance and shape features plus centroid coordinates, and whose edges connect nuclei within a fixed distance, subject to a k-nearest-neighbor cap. The CGC-Net stacks Adaptive GraphSage convolution and differentiable graph clustering, then combines hierarchical node embeddings into a three-way grade prediction. The reported image-level accuracy of 97.00±1.10% over three-fold cross-validation is higher than the 95.70±3.04% of the leading context-aware patch-based baseline, and ablation experiments attribute the gain to combined appearance and spatial features, farthest-point sampling, and the adaptive fusion module.

Load-bearing premise

The nuclear segmentation network, trained on 40× CoNSeP images, is assumed to generalize to the 20× CRC grading images well enough that the node features and graph structure are reliable, yet no segmentation accuracy on the target images is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accuracy holds, CRC grading no longer needs to trade off resolution against context: cell graphs let a single network see a 1792×1792 region as one structure rather than many isolated patches.
  • Grading becomes more interpretable: cluster assignments in the network's layers map back to tissue regions, with tumor and normal areas landing in distinct clusters.
  • The Adaptive GraphSage attention mechanism is a reusable module for any graph-level classification task where local structure is heterogeneous.
  • The farthest-point plus random sampling recipe gives a practical way to scale graph networks to gigapixel images with hundreds of thousands of nuclei.
  • Because the framework is stated as general, the same pipeline could be applied to other cancers whose grading rests on tissue architecture; that extension is the paper's own framing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable extension would be to report nuclear segmentation accuracy on the 20× CRC grading images; if segmentation errors are concentrated in high-grade regions, fixing them should raise grading accuracy further.
  • Appearance features alone already reach 97.00% image-level accuracy in one ablation row, so a graph built purely from nuclear appearance may capture much of the signal; this could be probed with randomized spatial layouts to isolate the contribution of topology.
  • Since the method depends on a pretrained nuclear segmentation network, improvements in nuclei instance segmentation should transfer directly to better grading, a coupling worth quantifying.
  • The 97% image accuracy is achieved with majority voting over patch-level predictions; an alternative slide-level aggregation, such as learning a graph across patches, might close the remaining gap to perfect grading.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CGC-Net, a cell-graph convolutional network for grading colorectal cancer histology images. Each image patch is converted into a graph by segmenting nuclei with CIA-Net, extracting hand-crafted nuclear appearance and spatial features, sampling representative nodes, and defining edges via distance thresholds. The network uses an 'Adaptive GraphSage' convolution with an LSTM-based attention mechanism for multi-scale feature fusion, followed by differentiable graph clustering for hierarchical representation. Experiments on a 139-image CRC dataset report image-level accuracy of 97.00±1.10, claimed to outperform previous methods by a large margin. Ablation studies examine node features, sampling strategies, and the proposed convolution module.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant problem in computational pathology: incorporating tissue micro-architecture at a larger scale than typical patch-based CNNs. The cell-graph formulation with hand-crafted node features and graph neural networks is a plausible direction, and the proposed Adaptive GraphSage is an original contribution. If the results are reproducible and statistically supported, the method would be a useful advance for CRC grading. However, the current evidence is insufficient to support the central claim: the nuclear segmentation is transferred across datasets and magnifications without validation, and the comparison to baselines relies on prior publications without significance testing. The work is of moderate significance pending those validations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The nuclear instance segmentation network CIA-Net is trained on CoNSeP images at 40× magnification and applied to CRC images at 20× without reporting any quantitative segmentation performance on the target domain. Since node features (area, perimeter, intensity statistics) and graph edges are derived from these masks, a systematic segmentation error at 20× would propagate into the entire graph representation and could account for the observed accuracy differences. The statement 'we expect a method trained on this dataset to generalise well' is an assumption; the authors should report detection/Dice results on a held-out set of CRC images at 20×, or at least provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the grading accuracy is stable under perturbations of the segmentation masks.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, Table 2] The central claim that CGC-Net 'outperforms all competing methods by a large margin' is not supported by any statistical test. The standard deviations of CGC-Net (1.10) and CA-CNN (3.04) overlap substantially, and no fold-wise comparison or paired test is reported. Moreover, the baseline numbers are quoted from the original papers rather than re-run under identical conditions. To support the claim, the authors should report per-fold results and a paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank across folds), and ideally re-implement the strongest baseline(s) in the same framework.
  3. [Section 3.2, Cell nuclei feature extractor] The procedure for selecting the 16 nuclear descriptors is not fully specified. The authors state that they trained a random forest to classify nuclei as epithelial, inflammatory, or spindle-shaped and then used feature selection, but it is not stated on which dataset this is done or whether the selection is nested inside the cross-validation. If the feature selection uses any nuclei from the CRC test images, the reported accuracy would be optimistically biased. Please clarify the dataset used for feature selection and, if necessary, re-run the evaluation with feature selection performed only on the training folds.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The graph construction parameters d and k in Eq. (2) are not given numerical values, and the number of hops in Adaptive GraphSage is also unspecified. These choices directly determine the graph topology and are necessary for reproducibility. Please list all hyperparameter values in Section 3.4 or in a separate table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammar issues: 'no this dataset' should be 'on this dataset' (Section 4.1); 'demostrates' should be 'demonstrates' and 'does no appropriately model' should be 'does not appropriately model' (Section 4.2.2); 'the the hierarchical structure' should be 'the hierarchical structure' (Section 3.3).
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The abstract and introduction claim that the method converts each large histology image into a graph, but Section 4.1 shows that the evaluation is performed on 1792×1792 patches with majority voting. This discrepancy should be clarified; the method is better described as operating on large patches.
  3. [Abstract] The claim 'around 16× larger' than traditional patch-based approaches is not supported by a calculation; the area ratio between the average image (4548×7520) and the 1792×1792 patch is approximately 10.7×, so the factor should be stated accurately or the comparison explained.
  4. [Section 3.4] The paper does not provide a statement about data availability or code availability, which limits reproducibility of the experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the 97.00% accuracy is an empirical result built from externally benchmarked components, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical measurement against external baselines on the CRC dataset, and no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction. The nuclear segmentation component (CIA-Net) is prior work by an overlapping author, but it is not circular: it is trained on the CoNSeP dataset, which supplies no cancer-grade labels, and is applied as a fixed preprocessing module before any grading network is trained. The 16 nuclear descriptors are selected using an auxiliary random-forest task on nuclear phenotypes (epithelial, inflammatory, spindle-shaped), not on the target grade labels, so the selection is not a fitted proxy for the reported accuracy. Graph construction parameters (sampling ratios, k-NN distance threshold, reweighting constant) are tuned experimental choices rather than quantities that the paper claims to predict. Adaptive GraphSage combines standard GraphSage and JK-Net mechanisms with explicit citation, and the graph clustering module is attributed to Ying et al. The remaining concern that CIA-Net was trained at 40x magnification and applied to 20x CRC images without target-domain segmentation validation is a domain-shift validation gap and a correctness risk, not circular reasoning. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and its accuracy result is not forced by any fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on several fitted hyperparameters (sampling ratios, reweighting factor, selected features) and on domain assumptions about segmentation generalization, graph edge semantics, and sampling adequacy. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a-ratio (farthest point sampling ratio) = 0.35
    Chosen by hand in all experiments (Sec 3.2). Controls graph density and affects performance.
  • b-ratio (random sampling ratio) = 0.15
    Chosen by hand; adds random nuclei to preserve density information (Sec 3.2).
  • p (reweighted adjacency self-loop weight) = 0.4
    Chosen by hand to mitigate over-smoothing (Sec 3.3).
  • Selected nuclear descriptors = 16 features listed in Sec 3.2 (e.g., mean intensity, area, GLCM features)
    Selected via random forest feature selection on CoNSeP nuclei to predict nuclear category; these fixed features are then used for grading.
  • Edge threshold d and KNN k = not reported
    Edge configuration in Eq. 2 depends on d and k, but their values are not stated, so the graph structure is under-specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CIA-Net trained on CoNSeP at 40× generalizes to CRC images at 20× without fine-tuning
    Sec 4.1 states this expectation explicitly but no validation on CRC images is provided.
  • domain assumption Cell-cell interactions relevant to CRC grading are captured by Euclidean distance threshold and k-nearest-neighbor edges
    Sec 3.2 hypothesizes smaller-distance cells are more likely to interact; if wrong, the graph structure is uninformative.
  • domain assumption The sampled nuclei subset (35% farthest point + 15% random) preserves the diagnostic tissue micro-architecture
    Sec 3.2 argues this trade-off preserves structure and density, but it is validated only indirectly through final accuracy.
  • standard math Standard graph neural network operations (graph convolution, differentiable pooling) are correctly implemented as referenced
    The paper builds on [25], [50], and [7] without deriving them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CGC-Net: Cell Graph Convolutional Network for Grading of Colorectal Cancer Histology Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7JTPBG5

@misc{pith2026190901068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CGC-Net: Cell Graph Convolutional Network for Grading of Colorectal Cancer Histology Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7JTPBG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01068}
}
abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) grading is typically carried out by assessing the degree of gland formation within histology images. To do this, it is important to consider the overall tissue micro-environment by assessing the cell-level information along with the morphology of the gland. However, current automated methods for CRC grading typically utilise small image patches and therefore fail to incorporate the entire tissue micro-architecture for grading purposes. To overcome the challenges of CRC grading, we present a novel cell-graph convolutional neural network (CGC-Net) that converts each large histology image into a graph, where each node is represented by a nucleus within the original image and cellular interactions are denoted as edges between these nodes according to node similarity. The CGC-Net utilises nuclear appearance features in addition to the spatial location of nodes to further boost the performance of the algorithm. To enable nodes to fuse multi-scale information, we introduce Adaptive GraphSage, which is a graph convolution technique that combines multi-level features in a data-driven way. Furthermore, to deal with redundancy in the graph, we propose a sampling technique that removes nodes in areas of dense nuclear activity. We show that modeling the image as a graph enables us to effectively consider a much larger image (around 16$\times$ larger) than traditional patch-based approaches and model the complex structure of the tissue micro-environment. We construct cell graphs with an average of over 3,000 nodes on a large CRC histology image dataset and report state-of-the-art results as compared to recent patch-based as well as contextual patch-based techniques, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A histology image (a) is typically broken into small image patches (b) for cancer grading. We propose to utilise the cell graph (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typical cell graphs from (a) normal, (b) low-grade and (c) high grade images. The blue lines represent the edges and the green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the CGC-Net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detailed structure of the Adaptive GraphSage module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of different node sampling strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualisation of the node clustering results. Nodes with different colours represent that they are arranged to different clusters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Classification of breast cancer histol- ogy images using convolutional neural networks

    Teresa Ara ´ujo, Guilherme Aresta, Eduardo Castro, Jos ´e Rouco, Paulo Aguiar, Catarina Eloy, Ant ´onio Pol ´onia, and Aur´elio Campilho. Classification of breast cancer histol- ogy images using convolutional neural networks. PloS one, 12(6):1–14, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Glandular morphometrics for objective grading of colorectal adenocarcinoma histology images

    Ruqayya Awan, Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, David Epstein, Samuel Jefferyes, Uvais Qidwai, Zia Aftab, Imaad Mujeeb, David Snead, and Nasir Rajpoot. Glandular morphometrics for objective grading of colorectal adenocarcinoma histology images. Scientific reports, 7(1):16852, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ecm-aware cell-graph mining for bone tissue modeling and classification

    Cemal Cagatay Bilgin, Peter Bullough, George E Plopper, and Bulent Yener. Ecm-aware cell-graph mining for bone tissue modeling and classification. Data Mining and Knowl- edge Discovery, 20(3):416–438, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Cell-graph mining for breast tissue modeling and classification

    Cemal Cagatay Bilgin, Cigdem Gunduz Demir, Chandan- deep Nagi, and Bulent Yener. Cell-graph mining for breast tissue modeling and classification. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of inci- dence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 coun- tries

    Freddie Bray, Jacques Ferlay, Isabelle Soerjomataram, Re- becca L Siegel, Lindsey A Torre, and Ahmedin Jemal. Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of inci- dence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 coun- tries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians , 68(6):394–424, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs

    Joan Bruna, Wojciech Zaremba, Arthur Szlam, and Yann Le- Cun. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. In International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Multi-label image recognition with graph convolutional net- works

    Zhaomin Chen, Xiushen Wei, Peng Wang, and Yanwen Guo. Multi-label image recognition with graph convolutional net- works. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions

    Franc ¸ois Chollet. Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Prognostic factors in col- orectal cancer: College of american pathologists consen- sus statement 1999

    Carolyn C Compton, L Peter Fielding, Lawrence J Bur- gart, Barbara Conley, Harry S Cooper, Stanley R Hamilton, M Elizabeth H Hammond, Donald E Henson, Robert VP Hutter, Raymond B Nagle, et al. Prognostic factors in col- orectal cancer: College of american pathologists consen- ...

    1999

  2. [10]

    Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning

    Nicolas Coudray, Paolo Santiago Ocampo, Theodore Sakel- laropoulos, Navneet Narula, Matija Snuderl, David Feny ¨o, Andre L Moreira, Narges Razavian, and Aristotelis Tsirigos. Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep...

    2018

  3. [11]

    High-throughput adaptive sampling for whole-slide histopathology image analysis (HASHI) via convolutional neural networks: Application to invasive breast cancer detection

    Angel Cruz-Roa, Hannah Gilmore, Ajay Basavanhally, Michael Feldman, Shridar Ganesan, Natalie Shih, John Tomaszewski, Anant Madabhushi, and Fabio Gonz ´alez. High-throughput adaptive sampling for whole-slide histopathology image analysis (HASHI) via convolutional neural network...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Fast Localized Spectral Filtering

    Micha ¨el Defferrard, Xavier Bresson, and Pierre Van- dergheynst. Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Fast Localized Spectral Filtering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . Curran Associates, Inc., 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Augmented cell-graphs for automated cancer diagnosis

    Cigdem Demir, S Humayun Gultekin, and Bulent Yener. Augmented cell-graphs for automated cancer diagnosis. Bioinformatics, 21(suppl 2):ii7–ii12, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    The use of morphologi- cal characteristics and texture analysis in the identification of tissue composition in prostatic neoplasia

    James Diamond, Neil H Anderson, Peter H Bartels, Rodolfo Montironi, and Peter W Hamilton. The use of morphologi- cal characteristics and texture analysis in the identification of tissue composition in prostatic neoplasia. Human Pathology, 35(9):1121–1131, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Com- puterized classification of intraductal breast lesions using histopathological images

    M Murat Dundar, Sunil Badve, Gokhan Bilgin, Vikas Raykar, Rohit Jain, Olcay Sertel, and Metin N Gurcan. Com- puterized classification of intraductal breast lesions using histopathological images. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 58(7):1977–1984, 2011

    1977

  8. [16]

    The farthest point strategy for pro- gressive image sampling

    Yuval Eldar, Michael Lindenbaum, Moshe Porat, and Yehoshua Y Zeevi. The farthest point strategy for pro- gressive image sampling. IEEE Trans. Image Processing , 6(9):1305–1315, 1997

    1997

  9. [17]

    Matthias Fey and Jan E. Lenssen. Fast graph representa- tion learning with PyTorch Geometric. InICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Graph U-nets

    Hongyang Gao and Shuiwang Ji. Graph U-nets. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Detection and clas- sification of cancer in whole slide breast histopathology im- ages using deep convolutional networks

    Baris Gecer, Selim Aksoy, Ezgi Mercan, Linda G Shapiro, Donald L Weaver, and Joann G Elmore. Detection and clas- sification of cancer in whole slide breast histopathology im- ages using deep convolutional networks. Pattern Recogni- tion, 84:345–356, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    A new model for learning in graph domains

    Marco Gori, Gabriele Monfardini, and Franco Scarselli. A new model for learning in graph domains. In Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Net- works, 2005. IEEE, 2005

    2005

  13. [21]

    MILD-Net: Minimal information loss dilated net- work for gland instance segmentation in colon histology im- ages

    Simon Graham, Hao Chen, Jevgenij Gamper, Qi Dou, Pheng-Ann Heng, David Snead, Yee Wah Tsang, and Nasir Rajpoot. MILD-Net: Minimal information loss dilated net- work for gland instance segmentation in colon histology im- ages. Medical Image Analysis, 52:199–211, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Classification of lung cancer histology images using patch-level summary statistics

    Simon Graham, Muhammad Shaban, Talha Qaiser, Navid Alemi Koohbanani, Syed Ali Khurram, and Nasir Rajpoot. Classification of lung cancer histology images using patch-level summary statistics. In Medical Imaging 2018: Digital Pathology, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Hover-net: Simultaneous segmentation and clas- sification of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images

    Simon Graham, Quoc Dang Vu, Shan E Ahmed Raza, Ayesha Azam, Yee Wah Tsang, Jin Tae Kwak, and Nasir Rajpoot. Hover-net: Simultaneous segmentation and clas- sification of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06499, 2019

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system , volume 48

    Stanley R Hamilton, Lauri A Aaltonen, et al. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system , volume 48. IARC press Lyon:, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec

    William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. In- ductive representation learning on large graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Mobilenets: Efficient convolu- tional neural networks for mobile vision applications

    Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco An- dreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolu- tional neural networks for mobile vision applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cellular community detec- tion for tissue phenotyping in histology images

    Sajid Javed, Muhammad Moazam Fraz, David Epstein, David Snead, and Nasir Rajpoot. Cellular community detec- tion for tissue phenotyping in histology images. In Compu- tational Pathology and Ophthalmic Medical Image Analysis. Springer, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Graph convolutional networks for cervical cell classification

    Shi Jun, Wang Ruoyu, Zheng Yushan, Jiang Zhiguo, and Yu Lanlan. Graph convolutional networks for cervical cell classification. https://openreview.net/pdf?id= S1gX_tlc-S

  22. [30]

    An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neopla- sia (cin)

    Stephen J Keenan, James Diamond, W Glenn McCluggage, Hoshang Bharucha, Deborah Thompson, Peter H Bartels, and Peter W Hamilton. An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neopla- sia (cin). The Journal of Pathology, 192(3):351–362, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Semi-supervised classifica- tion with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classifica- tion with graph convolutional networks. InIn Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learn- ing

    Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learn- ing. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Detecting cancer metastases on gigapixel pathol- ogy images

    Yun Liu, Krishna Gadepalli, Mohammad Norouzi, George E Dahl, Timo Kohlberger, Aleksey Boyko, Subhashini Venu- gopalan, Aleksei Timofeev, Philip Q Nelson, Greg S Cor- rado, et al. Detecting cancer metastases on gigapixel pathol- ogy images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.02442, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Neural network for graphs: A contextual constructive approach

    Alessio Micheli. Neural network for graphs: A contextual constructive approach. IEEE Transactions on Neural Net- works, 20(3):498–511, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Prostate can- cer grading: Gland segmentation and structural features.Pat- tern Recognition Letters, 33(7):951–961, 2012

    Kien Nguyen, Bikash Sabata, and Anil K Jain. Prostate can- cer grading: Gland segmentation and structural features.Pat- tern Recognition Letters, 33(7):951–961, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Learning convolutional neural networks for graphs

    Mathias Niepert, Mohamed Ahmed, and Konstantin Kutzkov. Learning convolutional neural networks for graphs. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Follicular lymphoma grading using cell-graphs and multi- scale feature analysis

    Basak Oztan, Hui Kong, Metin N G ¨urcan, and B¨ulent Yener. Follicular lymphoma grading using cell-graphs and multi- scale feature analysis. In Medical Imaging 2012: Computer- Aided Diagnosis, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Automatic dif- ferentiation in PyTorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic dif- ferentiation in PyTorch. In NIPS Autodiff Workshop, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    The graph neural net- work model

    Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Markus Ha- genbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. The graph neural net- work model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20:61– 80, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Computer-aided classification of breast cancer nuclei

    F Schnorrenberg, CS Pattichis, CN Schizas, K Kyriacou, and M Vassiliou. Computer-aided classification of breast cancer nuclei. Technology and Health Care, 4(2):147–161, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Muhammad Shaban, Ruqayya Awan, Muhammad Moazam Fraz, Ayesha Azam, David Snead, and Nasir M. Rajpoot. Context-Aware Convolutional Neural Network for Grading of Colorectal Cancer Histology Images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.09478, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Improving Whole Slide Seg- mentation Through Visual Context - A Systematic Study

    Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, Nasullah Khalid Alham, Clare Verrill, and Jens Rittscher. Improving Whole Slide Seg- mentation Through Visual Context - A Systematic Study. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Interven- tion, Cham, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Novel digital signatures of tissue phenotypes for predicting distant metastasis in colorectal cancer

    Korsuk Sirinukunwattana, David Snead, David Epstein, Zia Aftab, Imaad Mujeeb, Yee Wah Tsang, Ian Cree, and Nasir Rajpoot. Novel digital signatures of tissue phenotypes for predicting distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Scientific Reports, 8(1):13692, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Breast cancer histopathological image classification using convolutional neural networks

    Fabio Alexandre Spanhol, Luiz S Oliveira, Caroline Petit- jean, and Laurent Heutte. Breast cancer histopathological image classification using convolutional neural networks. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks . IEEE, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting

    Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014

    1929

  38. [46]

    Going deeper with convolutions

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Computer-assisted differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma based on syntactic structure analy- sis

    Barbara Weyn, Gert van de Wouwer, Samir Kumar-Singh, Andr´e van Daele, Paul Scheunders, Eric Van Marck, and Willem Jacob. Computer-assisted differential diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma based on syntactic structure analy- sis. Cytometry: The Journal of the International Soc...

    1999

  40. [48]

    Representa- tion learning on graphs with jumping knowledge networks

    Keyulu Xu, Chengtao Li, Yonglong Tian, Tomohiro Sonobe, Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, and Stefanie Jegelka. Representa- tion learning on graphs with jumping knowledge networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Cell-graphs: image-driven modeling of structure-function relationship

    Bulent Yener. Cell-graphs: image-driven modeling of structure-function relationship. Communications of the ACM, 60(1):74–84, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec

    Zhitao Ying, Jiaxuan You, Christopher Morris, Xiang Ren, William L. Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. Hierarchical graph representation learning with differentiable pooling. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Segmentation of vessel-like patterns using mathematical morphology and curvature eval- uation

    Frederic Zana and J-C Klein. Segmentation of vessel-like patterns using mathematical morphology and curvature eval- uation. IEEE Trans. Image Processing , 10(7):1010–1019, 2001

    2001

  44. [52]

    An end-to-end deep learning architecture for graph classification

    Muhan Zhang, Zhicheng Cui, Marion Neumann, and Yixin Chen. An end-to-end deep learning architecture for graph classification. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    CIA-Net: Ro- bust nuclei instance segmentation with contour-aware infor- mation aggregation

    Yanning Zhou, Omer Fahri Onder, Qi Dou, Efstratios Tsougenis, Hao Chen, and Pheng-Ann Heng. CIA-Net: Ro- bust nuclei instance segmentation with contour-aware infor- mation aggregation. In International Conference on Infor- mation Processing in Medical Imaging, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.