Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Are nuclear masks all you need for improved out-of-domain generalisation? A closer look at cancer classification in histopathology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a training-only method that uses nuclear segmentation masks to push a histopathology cancer classifier toward shape-based features, and reports improved out-of-domain accuracy on three datasets plus improved robustness…

desk verdict A clean, practical training trick with solid same-tissue OOD results; the cross-organ Ocelot claim is less secure than the abstract implies and the external-data protocol needs clarifying. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09373 v1 pith:LZYZGOJC submitted 2024-11-14 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Dhananjay Tomar , Alexander Binder , Andreas Kleppe This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords domaingeneralisationhistopathologycancerdetectionnuclearsegmentationrepresentationalignmentsingle-domainout-of-domainaccuracyadversarialrobustness
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 tests a simple hypothesis: that nuclear morphology and organisation are domain-invariant enough that steering a model toward them during training improves cancer detection on unseen hospitals. To do this, it adds two training-only changes to a ResNet-50 classifier: a second binary cross-entropy loss on the nuclear segmentation mask, and an $\ell^2$ penalty that pulls the image's embedding close to the mask's embedding. At inference only the H&E image is used, so the gains come with no extra computation. Across five CAMELYON17 training centres, the method reports higher out-of-domain accuracy than stain normalisation, augmentation, and other single-domain generalisation baselines on CAMELYON17, BCSS, and Ocelot, and it also shows smaller accuracy drops under image corruptions and PGD adversarial attacks. The ablation studies argue that the $\ell^2$ alignment, not the mask input augmentation alone, is what carries the improvement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined loss in Equation (1): $L = \lambda \|z - z'\|_2^2 + \mathrm{BCE}(y, \hat{y}) + \mathrm{BCE}(y, \hat{y}')$, where $z$ and $z'$ are the penultimate-layer feature maps (before global average pooling) of the H&E image and its nuclear mask, and $\hat{y}, \hat{y}'$ are the respective predictions. With probability 0.5 the network receives the image multiplied by its mask ($x \ast x'$) instead of the raw image, which makes the alignment easier and stabilises training. The binary masks come from HoVer-Net pretrained on CoNSeP. This mechanism forces the image representation toward a representation that contains only nuclei and no colour or texture, which is exactly the intended shape-focused inductive bias.

What would settle it

Shuffle the nuclear masks among training tiles so that each H&E image is paired with another image's mask, while keeping the same loss; if out-of-domain accuracy on CAMELYON17 stays near the reported 91.8% rather than falling back to the ERM-Aug baseline of 85.5%, then the masks are not contributing semantic nuclear information and the paper's explanation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a model trained to classify H&E tiles as tumour or non-tumour can be made to rely on nuclear shape and arrangement instead of stain-sensitive texture and colour, simply by supervising it with nuclear segmentation masks during training and asking its image embedding to match the mask embedding. The paper reports that this training procedure (called 'Ours-Aug') reaches an average out-of-domain accuracy of 91.8% on CAMELYON17, compared with 89.1% for the best baseline L2D-Aug, and that the advantage persists on external datasets BCSS (78.8% vs 75.1%) and Ocelot (70.6% vs 69.1%). It further shows that removing the $\ell^2$ term drops performance to near-baseline levels, and that the learned features are indeed mask-like: subtracting the mask embedding from the image embedding at test time collapses accuracy to below random guessing for the proposed method, while degrading other methods less.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result depends on the nuclear segmentation masks being accurate and consistent across hospitals; if the mask-generating network makes too many errors on some centre, the extra losses could teach the model noise instead of nuclear shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deployment is unchanged: the trained model consumes only H&E tiles at inference, so the out-of-domain accuracy gain costs nothing at test time.
  • The method acts as a plug-in: combining it with RSC gives a small gain over the proposed method alone on CAMELYON17 (92.3% average vs 91.8%), while combining with L2D gives mixed results.
  • Shape-focused representations are more robust: the method shows smaller accuracy drops than ERM and L2D under eight common corruptions and under PGD attacks, including cross-model attacks.
  • The benefit transfers to external datasets and other organs: accuracy on BCSS and Ocelot is higher than all baselines, though on Ocelot organs with low overall transferability (Endometrium, Kidney) the gain over L2D disappears or reverses.
  • For a ViT-Tiny backbone, the same training improves out-of-domain accuracy on CAMELYON17 (93.2% average without Centre-4 vs 88.8% for L2D), but gains are smaller and less consistent on cross-cancer datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not run is to vary the mask source: using masks from a different segmentation model or from the target domain itself would show whether the benefit scales with mask quality or is specific to HoVer-Net's particular errors.
  • If the mechanism is really shape alignment, the same recipe could be transferred to other histopathology tasks where nuclear morphology is diagnostic, such as tumour grading or mitosis counting; the paper itself notes it only tested binary cancer detection.
  • The strong dependence on masks suggests a cheap test for clinical deployment: measure how OOD accuracy changes as the segmentation model's errors increase (e.g., on low-quality or frozen sections), since a hospital with unusual staining may also have poorer masks.
  • One could also probe the regulariser's effect directly by measuring the embedding distance between image and mask on held-out data; the paper's ablation with embedding subtraction already hints that this distance is unusually small for its models.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a training-time method for single-domain generalisation in histopathology cancer detection. The method, applied to a ResNet-50 (and a ViT-Tiny in a preliminary study), uses nuclear segmentation masks generated by HoVer-Net during training only: it minimises binary cross-entropy on both the H&E image and its mask, adds an ℓ2 penalty aligning the penultimate-layer embeddings of image and mask, and with probability 0.5 feeds the image multiplied by its mask. At inference only the H&E image is used. The authors evaluate out-of-domain accuracy on CAMELYON17 (same tissue, different centres), BCSS (primary breast cancer), and Ocelot (other organs), together with robustness to corruptions, PGD attacks, and a large set of ablations. The main claimed result is that the method improves OOD accuracy over strong baselines including L2D and RSC, while requiring no segmentation at inference.

Significance. If the empirical claims are supported, the method is practically attractive: it is a simple plug-in regularisation that needs no mask at inference, and the paper provides source code and a processed CAMELYON17 version. The ablation study is unusually extensive and the robustness experiments are a useful addition. The main caveat is that the statistical support for the cross-organ (Ocelot) claim is fragile, and the claimed protection against multiple comparisons from using external test sets only once is not documented in a way that rules out selection effects. The same-tissue CAMELYON17 gains are large and consistent in magnitude, though the paired tests as reported do not account for centre-level clustering.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Table 3] The paired t-test reported under Table 3 (p=0.044 for Ours-Aug versus L2D-Aug on Ocelot) treats the ten models per training centre as independent replicates. These models are not independent: models trained on the same centre share the same training data and are evaluated on the same external test tiles, so the effective number of independent units is five centres, not fifty. With centre as the unit, Ours-Aug is better in only three of five centres and is worse than L2D-Aug in Centre-0 (70.8 vs 74.7) and Centre-4 (70.7 vs 74.4); per-organ results in Tables 5 and 7 are also worse for Ours-Aug in Endometrium and Kidney. A cluster-robust or centre-level test would very likely not reach significance, so the Ocelot component of the central claim is not statistically established. The same issue affects the reported p-values for Tables 1 and 2, where Ours-Aug also loses on Centre-0 and Centre-4 in Table 1 and on Centre-4 in Table 2. Please report centre-level paired differences with cluster-robust standard errors, or a mixed-effects model with centre as a random effect.
  2. [§4.3, Tables 2-9 and 26-31] The paper states that 'we use the external test datasets only once during the entire project, solely to evaluate the final models' and cites this as protection against multiple comparisons. The manuscript nevertheless reports many evaluations on BCSS and Ocelot: the main accuracy tables, per-organ Ocelot tables, the L2D/RSC combination tables, the ViT-Tiny tables, and numerous ablation tables. Unless all analyses were pre-specified and the external test sets were never consulted for any design decision, the 'only once' claim is not sufficient to rule out selection effects. This matters because the photometric augmentation set is described as selected after testing Torchvision augmentation strategies, and the data used for that selection is not stated. Please clarify the exact protocol: which decisions were made using only training-domain validation, which analyses were pre-specified, and whether external test predictions were locked before any of the reported subgroup analyses were produced.
  3. [§5, Table 10] The embedding-subtraction experiment is presented as evidence that the model has learned mask-like features, but the outcome is mechanistically expected from the ℓ2 alignment term in Eq. (1): training explicitly minimises the distance between H&E and mask embeddings, so subtracting the mask embedding should remove a large part of the learned signal. This does not undermine the method, but it is a sanity check of the training objective rather than independent evidence that nuclear morphology is the cause of the OOD gains. I recommend presenting it as such and, if possible, adding an ablation that varies the alignment strength λ or the mask quality to test the causal link more directly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] In the first paragraph, 'S-GD' should read 'S-DG' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [§3] The first sentence of Section 3 contains 'shaped-based'; this should be 'shape-based'.
  3. [Tables 18-22] Several table headings contain typographical errors, e.g., 'areinpainted' and inconsistent 'IN DOMAIN' capitalization; these should be corrected.
  4. [Throughout] The spelling of 'Centre' versus 'Center' alternates across tables and text (e.g., Table 1 uses 'Centre', while Tables 29-31 and the Ocelot discussion use 'Center'); one spelling should be used consistently.
  5. [§4.3, Tables 1-3] The statistical test details are incomplete: please state explicitly what units are paired in each t-test, how standard deviations are computed, and whether any correction for multiple comparisons was applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the OOD gain is an external empirical result; masks come from an independent pretrained model and are absent at inference.

full rationale

The central claim is evaluated on external datasets (BCSS, Ocelot) and on held-out CAMELYON17 centres, with nuclear masks used only during training and not at inference. The mask generator, HoVer-Net trained on CoNSeP, is an external, fixed component that does not encode the CAMELYON17 labels or the target-domain test data; no parameter of the method is fitted to the external test sets, and the paper explicitly states that the external test datasets were used only once for final evaluation. The training objective in Eq. (1) is not equivalent to the evaluation metric: minimizing BCE losses on image/mask pairs plus an ℓ2 embedding-alignment term does not, by construction, produce the reported OOD accuracy improvements, which must be established empirically. The ablation that subtracts mask embeddings and observes a larger drop for the proposed method is a consistency check of the training objective, not a derivation of the generalization benefit, so it does not constitute circular reasoning. The only self-referential elements are a replication-data citation [56] and a study-design citation [57] used to justify the once-only external evaluation protocol; these are procedural and non-load-bearing. Concerns about the Ocelot paired t-test ignoring centre-level clustering and about multiple comparisons are statistical-correctness issues, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on the biological premise that nuclear shape and organisation are domain-invariant, on the tooling premise that HoVer-Net masks are adequate, and on the model-selection premise that source-domain validation loss tracks OOD performance. Free parameters (lambda, mixing probability, augmentation ranges) are tuned on the source domain and should be disclosed.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (embedding alignment weight) = 1 after a 5-epoch warm-up (0 for first 5 epochs)
    Chosen manually to stabilize training; affects the trade-off between the alignment loss and the BCE losses.
  • mask-times-input probability = 0.5
    Chosen after 'we found this augmentation to help stabilise training'.
  • Photometric augmentation ranges = ColorJitter(brightness=[0.5,1.5], contrast=[0.5,1.5], saturation=[0.5,1.5], hue=[-0.3,0.3]); GaussianBlur(kernel_size=3)
    Selected after testing various Torchvision augmentation strategies.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Nuclear morphology and organisation are sufficiently domain-invariant and informative for cancer detection.
    Central hypothesis in Section 1; motivates the method.
  • domain assumption The validation set of the training domain is a reliable model-selection criterion for OOD performance.
    Used in Section 4.3 to select the best model per training run.
  • domain assumption Automated nuclear segmentation masks (HoVer-Net) are accurate enough to serve as training targets.
    Relied on in Sections 3 and 4.3; no mask-quality evaluation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are nuclear masks all you need for improved out-of-domain generalisation? A closer look at cancer classification in histopathology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZYZGOJC

@misc{pith2026241109373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are nuclear masks all you need for improved out-of-domain generalisation? A closer look at cancer classification in histopathology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZYZGOJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09373}
}
read the original abstract

Domain generalisation in computational histopathology is challenging because the images are substantially affected by differences among hospitals due to factors like fixation and staining of tissue and imaging equipment. We hypothesise that focusing on nuclei can improve the out-of-domain (OOD) generalisation in cancer detection. We propose a simple approach to improve OOD generalisation for cancer detection by focusing on nuclear morphology and organisation, as these are domain-invariant features critical in cancer detection. Our approach integrates original images with nuclear segmentation masks during training, encouraging the model to prioritise nuclei and their spatial arrangement. Going beyond mere data augmentation, we introduce a regularisation technique that aligns the representations of masks and original images. We show, using multiple datasets, that our method improves OOD generalisation and also leads to increased robustness to image corruptions and adversarial attacks. The source code is available at https://github.com/undercutspiky/SFL/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We pass the input image (or, with 0.5 probability, input image multiplied with its nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exemplary image ablations used in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Robustness to added noise described in [61]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) PGD attack on models. (b) Cross-model PGD attacks where adversarial images are generated using a model from a method but the accuracy for those images is tested on models from other methods. Results are for the validation subset of each centre in CAMELYON17. conduc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exemplary image corruptions from [61] applied to an input image used in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Saliency maps for four randomly selected tiles using Integrated Gradients [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Saliency maps for four randomly selected tiles using Integrated Gradients [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis

    Marc Macenko, Marc Niethammer, James S Marron, David Borland, John T Woosley, Xiaojun Guan, Charles Schmitt, and Nancy E Thomas. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. In 2009 IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: from nano to macro, pages 1107–1110. IEEE, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Quantifying the effects of data augmentation and stain color normalization in convolutional neural networks for computational pathology

    David Tellez, Geert Litjens, Péter Bándi, Wouter Bulten, John-Melle Bokhorst, Francesco Ciompi, and Jeroen Van Der Laak. Quantifying the effects of data augmentation and stain color normalization in convolutional neural networks for computational pathology. Medical image analysis, 58:101544, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Domain general- ization in computational pathology: survey and guidelines

    Mostafa Jahanifar, Manahil Raza, Kesi Xu, Trinh Vuong, Rob Jewsbury, Adam Shephard, Neda Zamanitajeddin, Jin Tae Kwak, Shan E Ahmed Raza, Fayyaz Minhas, et al. Domain general- ization in computational pathology: survey and guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19656, 2023

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness

    Robert Geirhos, Patricia Rubisch, Claudio Michaelis, Matthias Bethge, Felix A Wichmann, and Wieland Brendel. Imagenet-trained cnns are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Deep convolutional networks do not classify based on global object shape

    Nicholas Baker, Hongjing Lu, Gennady Erlikhman, and Philip J Kellman. Deep convolutional networks do not classify based on global object shape. PLoS computational biology, 14(12): e1006613, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer

    Christopher W Elston and Ian O Ellis. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. i. the value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology, 19(5):403–410, 1991

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Nuclear structure in cancer cells

    Daniele Zink, Andrew H Fischer, and Jeffrey A Nickerson. Nuclear structure in cancer cells. Nature reviews cancer, 4(9):677–687, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Nuclear morphology and the biology of cancer cells

    Edgar G Fischer. Nuclear morphology and the biology of cancer cells. Acta cytologica, 64(6): 511–519, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Importance of nuclear morphology in breast cancer prognosis

    William H Wolberg, W Nick Street, and Olvi L Mangasarian. Importance of nuclear morphology in breast cancer prognosis. Clinical Cancer Research, 5(11):3542–3548, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Automated gland and nuclei segmentation for grading of prostate and breast cancer histopathology

    Shivang Naik, Scott Doyle, Shannon Agner, Anant Madabhushi, Michael Feldman, and John Tomaszewski. Automated gland and nuclei segmentation for grading of prostate and breast cancer histopathology. In 2008 5th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Mac...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Automatic breast cancer grading of histopathological images

    Jean-Romain Dalle, Wee Kheng Leow, Daniel Racoceanu, Adina Eunice Tutac, and Thomas C Putti. Automatic breast cancer grading of histopathological images. In 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society , pages 3052–3055. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Boucheron, B

    Laura E. Boucheron, B. S. Manjunath, and Neal R. Harvey. Use of imperfectly segmented nuclei in the classification of histopathology images of breast cancer. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , pages 666–669, 2010. doi: 10.1109/ I...

    2010

  5. [13]

    Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer

    Mitko Veta, Robert Kornegoor, André Huisman, Anoek H J Verschuur-Maes, Max A Viergever, Josien P W Pluim, and Paul J van Diest. Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer. Modern Pathology, 25(12): 1559...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Automatic breast cancer diagnosis based on k-means clustering and adaptive thresholding hybrid segmentation

    Paweł Filipczuk, Marek Kowal, and Andrzej Obuchowicz. Automatic breast cancer diagnosis based on k-means clustering and adaptive thresholding hybrid segmentation. InImage processing and communications challenges 3 , pages 295–302. Springer, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Hewitt, Nicholas Petrick, Kyle J

    Hela Masmoudi, Stephen M. Hewitt, Nicholas Petrick, Kyle J. Myers, and Marios A. Gavrielides. Automated quantitative assessment of her-2/neu immunohistochemical expression in breast cancer. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 28(6):916–925, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2009. 2012901

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Automated segmentation and measurement for cancer classification of her2/neu status in breast carcinomas

    L Sing Cheong, Angela Jean, Tsu Soo Tan, Waiming Kong, and Soo Yong Tan. Automated segmentation and measurement for cancer classification of her2/neu status in breast carcinomas. In Biotechno 2011: The Third International Conference on Bioinformatics . Citeseer, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Use of watersheds in contour detection

    Serge Beucher and Christian Lantuéjoul. Use of watersheds in contour detection. workshop published, September 1979. URL http://cmm.ensmp.fr/~beucher/publi/watershed. pdf

    1979

  10. [18]

    Osher and James A

    Stanley J. Osher and James A. Sethian. Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithms based on hamilton-jacobi formulations. Journal of Computational Physics , 79: 12–49, 1988. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:205007680

    1988

  11. [19]

    Snakes: Active contour models

    Michael Kass, Andrew Witkin, and Demetri Terzopoulos. Snakes: Active contour models. International Journal of Computer Vision , 1(4):321–331, Jan 1988. ISSN 1573-1405. doi: 10.1007/BF00133570. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133570

    1988 doi

  12. [20]

    Cullen M.D., and Seong Ki Mun

    Akira Hasegawa, Kevin J. Cullen M.D., and Seong Ki Mun. Segmentation and analysis of breast cancer pathological images by an adaptive-sized hybrid neural network. In Murray H. Loew and Kenneth M. Hanson, editors, Medical Imaging 1996: Image Processing , volume 2710, pages 752 ...

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    Kyoung-Mi Lee and W.N. Street. An adaptive resource-allocating network for automated detection, segmentation, and classification of breast cancer nuclei topic area: image processing and recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 14(3):680–687, 2003. doi: 10.1109/ TNN.2...

    2003

  14. [22]

    Structure- preserving color normalization and sparse stain separation for histological images

    Abhishek Vahadane, Tingying Peng, Amit Sethi, Shadi Albarqouni, Lichao Wang, Maximilian Baust, Katja Steiger, Anna Melissa Schlitter, Irene Esposito, and Nassir Navab. Structure- preserving color normalization and sparse stain separation for histological images. IEEE transacti...

    1962

  15. [23]

    Color transfer between images

    Erik Reinhard, Michael Adhikhmin, Bruce Gooch, and Peter Shirley. Color transfer between images. IEEE Computer graphics and applications , 21(5):34–41, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Randstainna: Learning stain-agnostic features from histology slides by bridging stain augmentation and normalization

    Yiqing Shen, Yulin Luo, Dinggang Shen, and Jing Ke. Randstainna: Learning stain-agnostic features from histology slides by bridging stain augmentation and normalization. In Interna- tional Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 212–221...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Stain normaliza- tion methods for histopathology image analysis: A comprehensive review and experimental comparison

    Md Ziaul Hoque, Anja Keskinarkaus, Pia Nyberg, and Tapio Seppänen. Stain normaliza- tion methods for histopathology image analysis: A comprehensive review and experimental comparison. Information Fusion, page 101997, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Tailoring automated data augmenta- tion to h&e-stained histopathology

    Khrystyna Faryna, Jeroen Van der Laak, and Geert Litjens. Tailoring automated data augmenta- tion to h&e-stained histopathology. In Medical imaging with deep learning , 2021. 12

    2021

  19. [27]

    Randaugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search space

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Randaugment: Practical automated data augmentation with a reduced search space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , pages 702–703, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    H and e stain augmentation improves generalization of convolutional networks for histopathological mitosis detection

    David Tellez, Maschenka Balkenhol, Nico Karssemeijer, Geert Litjens, Jeroen van der Laak, and Francesco Ciompi. H and e stain augmentation improves generalization of convolutional networks for histopathological mitosis detection. In Medical Imaging 2018: Digital Pathology , vo...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Augment like there’s no tomorrow: Consistently performing neural networks for medical imaging.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15274, 2022

    Joona Pohjonen, Carolin Stürenberg, Atte Föhr, Reija Randen-Brady, Lassi Luomala, Jouni Lohi, Esa Pitkänen, Antti Rannikko, and Tuomas Mirtti. Augment like there’s no tomorrow: Consistently performing neural networks for medical imaging.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15274, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Data-driven color augmentation for h&e stained images in computational pathology

    Niccolò Marini, Sebastian Otalora, Marek Wodzinski, Selene Tomassini, Aldo Franco Dragoni, Stephane Marchand-Maillet, Juan Pedro Dominguez Morales, Lourdes Duran-Lopez, Simona Vatrano, Henning Müller, et al. Data-driven color augmentation for h&e stained images in computationa...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Automatic data augmentation to improve generalization of deep learning in h&e stained histopathology

    Khrystyna Faryna, Jeroen van der Laak, and Geert Litjens. Automatic data augmentation to improve generalization of deep learning in h&e stained histopathology. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 170:108018, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Self-challenging improves cross- domain generalization

    Zeyi Huang, Haohan Wang, Eric P Xing, and Dong Huang. Self-challenging improves cross- domain generalization. In Computer vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, proceedings, part II 16 , pages 124–140. Springer, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Generalizing to unseen domains via adversarial data augmentation

    Riccardo V olpi, Hongseok Namkoong, Ozan Sener, John C Duchi, Vittorio Murino, and Silvio Savarese. Generalizing to unseen domains via adversarial data augmentation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Learning to learn single domain generalization

    Fengchun Qiao, Long Zhao, and Xi Peng. Learning to learn single domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 12556–12565, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Wasserstein auto- encoders

    Ilya Tolstikhin, Olivier Bousquet, Sylvain Gelly, and Bernhard Schoelkopf. Wasserstein auto- encoders. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Progressive domain expansion network for single domain generalization

    Lei Li, Ke Gao, Juan Cao, Ziyao Huang, Yepeng Weng, Xiaoyue Mi, Zhengze Yu, Xiaoya Li, and Boyang Xia. Progressive domain expansion network for single domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 224–233, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Learning to diversify for single domain generalization

    Zijian Wang, Yadan Luo, Ruihong Qiu, Zi Huang, and Mahsa Baktashmotlagh. Learning to diversify for single domain generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 834–843, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2223–2232, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Staingan: Stain style transfer for digital histological images

    M Tarek Shaban, Christoph Baur, Nassir Navab, and Shadi Albarqouni. Staingan: Stain style transfer for digital histological images. In 2019 Ieee 16th international symposium on biomedical imaging (Isbi 2019) , pages 953–956. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Residual cyclegan for robust domain transformation of histopathological tissue slides

    Thomas de Bel, John-Melle Bokhorst, Jeroen van der Laak, and Geert Litjens. Residual cyclegan for robust domain transformation of histopathological tissue slides. Medical Image Analysis, 70:102004, 2021. 13

    2021

  34. [42]

    Enhanced cycle-consistent generative adversarial network for color normalization of h&e stained images

    Niyun Zhou, De Cai, Xiao Han, and Jianhua Yao. Enhanced cycle-consistent generative adversarial network for color normalization of h&e stained images. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, Octo...

    2019

  35. [43]

    Histopathological stain transfer using style transfer network with adversarial loss

    Harshal Nishar, Nikhil Chavanke, and Nitin Singhal. Histopathological stain transfer using style transfer network with adversarial loss. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Pro...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks

    Leon A Gatys, Alexander S Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2414–2423, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution

    Justin Johnson, Alexandre Alahi, and Li Fei-Fei. Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14 , pages 694–711. Springer, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Neural stain normalization and unsupervised classification of cell nuclei in histopathological breast cancer images

    Edwin Yuan and Junkyo Suh. Neural stain normalization and unsupervised classification of cell nuclei in histopathological breast cancer images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03815, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Neural stain-style transfer learning using gan for histopathological images

    Hyungjoo Cho, Sungbin Lim, Gunho Choi, and Hyunseok Min. Neural stain-style transfer learning using gan for histopathological images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.08543, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology

    Karin Stacke, Gabriel Eilertsen, Jonas Unger, and Claes Lundström. Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics , 25(2): 325–336, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 770–778, 2016. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Torchvision: Pytorch’s computer vision library

    TorchVision maintainers and contributors. Torchvision: Pytorch’s computer vision library. https://github.com/pytorch/vision, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset

    Geert Litjens, Peter Bandi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Oscar Geessink, Maschenka Balkenhol, Peter Bult, Altuna Halilovic, Meyke Hermsen, Rob Van de Loo, Rob V ogels, et al. 1399 h&e-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the camelyon dataset. GigaScienc...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Structured crowdsourcing enables convolutional segmentation of histology images

    Mohamed Amgad, Habiba Elfandy, Hagar Hussein, Lamees A Atteya, Mai AT Elsebaie, Lamia S Abo Elnasr, Rokia A Sakr, Hazem SE Salem, Ahmed F Ismail, Anas M Saad, et al. Structured crowdsourcing enables convolutional segmentation of histology images. Bioinformatics, 35(18): 3461–3...

    2019

  45. [53]

    Ocelot: Overlapped cell on tissue dataset for histopathology

    Jeongun Ryu, Aaron Valero Puche, JaeWoong Shin, Seonwook Park, Biagio Brattoli, Jinhee Lee, Wonkyung Jung, Soo Ick Cho, Kyunghyun Paeng, Chan-Young Ock, et al. Ocelot: Overlapped cell on tissue dataset for histopathology. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer V...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Earnshaw, Imran S

    Pang Wei Koh, Shiori Sagawa, Henrik Marklund, Sang Michael Xie, Marvin Zhang, Akshay Balsubramani, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Richard Lanas Phillips, Irena Gao, Tony Lee, Etienne David, Ian Stavness, Wei Guo, Berton A. Earnshaw, Imran S. Haque, Sara Beery, Jure Leskovec, A...

    2021

  47. [55]

    Extending the wilds benchmark for unsupervised adaptation

    Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tony Lee, Irena Gao, Sang Michael Xie, Kendrick Shen, Ananya Kumar, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Henrik Marklund, Sara Beery, Etienne David, Ian Stavness, Wei Guo, Jure Leskovec, Kate Saenko, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, and ...

    2022

  48. [56]

    Replication Data for: Are nuclear masks all you need for improved out-of- domain generalization? A closer look at cancer classification in histopathology, 2024

    Dhananjay Tomar. Replication Data for: Are nuclear masks all you need for improved out-of- domain generalization? A closer look at cancer classification in histopathology, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.18710/NXPLFL

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Designing deep learning studies in cancer diagnostics

    Andreas Kleppe, Ole-Johan Skrede, Sepp De Raedt, Knut Liestøl, David J Kerr, and Håvard E Danielsen. Designing deep learning studies in cancer diagnostics. Nature Reviews Cancer, 21 (3):199–211, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  51. [59]

    HoVer-net: Simultaneous segmentation and classification 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 classification of nuclei in multi-tissue histology images. Medical image analysis, 58:101563, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at...

    2021

  53. [61]

    Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations

    Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Kunz, Matthew C

    Eugene V orontsov, Alican Bozkurt, Adam Casson, George Shaikovski, Michal Zelechowski, Siqi Liu, Kristen Severson, Eric Zimmermann, James Hall, Neil Tenenholtz, Nicolo Fusi, Philippe Mathieu, Alexander van Eck, Donghun Lee, Julian Viret, Eric Robert, Yi Kan Wang, Jeremy D. Kun...

    2024

  55. [63]

    An image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method

    Alexandru Telea. An image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method. Journal of graphics tools, 9(1):23–34, 2004

    2004

  56. [64]

    The many shapley values for model explanation

    Mukund Sundararajan and Amir Najmi. The many shapley values for model explanation. In International conference on machine learning , pages 9269–9278. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    Intriguing properties of neural networks

    C Szegedy. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks

    Aleksander Madry, Aleksandar Makelov, Ludwig Schmidt, Dimitris Tsipras, and Adrian Vladu. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Scaling vision transform- ers

    Xiaohua Zhai, Alexander Kolesnikov, Neil Houlsby, and Lucas Beyer. Scaling vision transform- ers. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 18-24, 2022 , pages 1204–1213. IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688. 2022.01...

    2022

  60. [68]

    The best accuracy for each column is in bold face and the second best in italics

    The column name indicates the centre used to train models. The best accuracy for each column is in bold face and the second best in italics. Method Centre-0 Centre-1 Centre-2 Centre-3 Centre-4 Average ERM 54.7 ± 3.3 62 .4 ± 3 .7 50.5 ± 1.9 49 .9 ± 0.2 48 .6 ± 7.1 53 .2 ± 3.2 M...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.