Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 57 references

Intelligent Histology for Tumor Neurosurgery

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Intelligent histology—AI trained on stimulated Raman images—promises bedside tumor diagnosis, molecular typing, and margin checks during brain surgery.

desk verdict A competent, well-referenced review of the SRH+AI line of work that overclaims clinical benefit from diagnostic-accuracy evidence and needs a limitations section and tempered conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03037 v1 pith:LDHYZQPL submitted 2025-07-03 cs.CV

Xinhai Hou , Akhil Kondepudi , Cheng Jiang , Yiwei Lyu , Samir Harake , Asadur Chowdury , Anna-Katharina Mei{ss}ner , Volker Neuschmelting
show 22 more authors
David Reinecke Gina Furtjes Georg Widhalm Lisa Irina Koerner Jakob Straehle Nicolas Neidert Pierre Scheffler Juergen Beck Michael Ivan Ashish Shah Aditya Pandey Sandra Camelo-Piragua Dieter Henrik Heiland Oliver Schnell Chris Freudiger Jacob Young Melike Pekmezci Katie Scotford Shawn Hervey-Jumper Daniel Orringer Mitchel Berger Todd Hollon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords stimulatedRamanhistologyartificialintelligenceintraoperativediagnosistumorneurosurgerymolecularclassificationsurgicalmargindetectionfoundationmodelslabel-freeopticalimaging
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

Intelligent histology is the name this review gives to pairing artificial intelligence with stimulated Raman histology, a label-free optical imaging method that produces high-resolution digital microscope images of fresh tissue in seconds. The review argues that this combination can deliver the three tasks that matter most in brain tumor surgery—histologic diagnosis, molecular classification, and detection of tumor infiltration at the surgical margin—at the patient's bedside, within minutes rather than the 20-plus minutes frozen sections usually take. Standard intraoperative pathology, based on light microscopy and H&E staining, is slow and cannot produce real-time digital images, which is why the authors present intelligent histology as a way to turn every fresh specimen into a data-rich substrate for AI. The clinical stakes are concrete: if the accuracy figures reported in the cited studies hold up, surgeons could know the tumor type and its molecular profile before the resection is finished, and could use a quantitative infiltration score to decide whether to remove more tissue at the margin.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is stimulated Raman histology (SRH), a label-free vibrational microscopy method that images fresh, unprocessed tissue by detecting Raman scattering at two spectral channels, $2845~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ for lipids and $2930~\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ for proteins, then displays the result with a virtual H&E color scheme. Because the Raman signal is proportional to macromolecule concentration, SRH images carry quantitative biochemical contrast that light microscopy cannot provide. On the AI side, the load-bearing components are a CNN trained for histologic diagnosis, the multimodal DeepGlioma model trained on SRH plus public genomic data for molecular classification, and FastGlioma, whose transformer-based whole-slide encoder is pretrained by self-supervision on roughly four million images and fine-tuned on expert-annotated margins to output a tumor-infiltration score between 0 and 1. The paper also describes self-supervised training schemes, HiDisc and SPT, built on the released OpenSRH dataset, as the route to foundation models for the field.

What would settle it

Run a prospective external validation at several non-affiliated hospitals in which the published inference models are applied to fresh SRH images from unselected consecutive cases, with the same tumor mix and a blinded reference standard; if diagnostic accuracy, molecular classification accuracy, or margin-detection AUC fall to near chance, or below the accuracy of standard intraoperative frozen-section pathology, the claim that intelligent histology transforms tumor neurosurgery would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI applied to stimulated Raman histology is on the verge of replacing the conventional frozen-section workflow for tumor neurosurgery. The authors support this with prospective clinical results: a convolutional network trained on more than 2.5 million SRH images classified the thirteen most common neurosurgical diagnoses with 93.1 percent accuracy at two minutes per case; DeepGlioma predicted the WHO molecular markers IDH, 1p19q, and ATRX with 93.3 percent accuracy in a prospective multicenter cohort; and FastGlioma, a foundation model pretrained on roughly four million SRH images, detected and quantified tumor infiltration at the surgical margin with an average AUC of 92.1 percent, outperforming image-guided and fluorescence-guided adjuncts. Because SRH is digital and quantitative, the authors argue, it is fundamentally better suited to machine learning than glass-slide pathology: models can be trained to find the same histologic features pathologists use, and self-supervised models can be pretrained on large unlabeled datasets so that rare tumors can be tackled with small annotated sets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the high accuracies from the cited prospective studies—93.1 percent for diagnosis, 93.3 percent for molecular classification, and 92.1 percent AUC for margin detection—will transfer to routine neurosurgical practice at hospitals outside the centers that developed and tested the models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Intraoperative diagnosis would shrink from a twenty- to thirty-minute frozen-section wait to a two- to three-minute digital read, letting the surgeon act on the pathology during the same operation.
  • Molecular status would be available before the resection is finished, so IDH and 1p19q status could guide whether the surgical goal should be gross-total or supratotal resection.
  • Margin assessment becomes a quantitative 0-to-1 infiltration score, giving the surgeon an immediate, objective answer about whether a sampled cavity wall contains dense tumor, normal brain, or an intermediate grade of infiltration.
  • The workflow extends beyond gliomas to meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, skull-base tumors, spine tumors, pediatric brain tumors, primary CNS lymphoma, and peripheral nerve evaluation, making it a general intraoperative tool.
  • Open datasets and self-supervised pretraining lower the data barrier for rare diagnoses, so a hospital with a small annotated set can fine-tune a strong pretrained model instead of training from scratch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the practical bottleneck will shift from diagnosis to decision: if the reported accuracies hold, the field will need outcome studies—randomized or quasi-experimental—testing whether AI-guided margin scores actually reduce residual tumor burden and extend progression-free survival.
  • The same label-free, digital-imaging-plus-AI pattern could plausibly be transferred to other fresh-tissue surgeries where margin status drives re-operation, such as breast, prostate, and head-and-neck resection, but the paper tests none of these applications, so this is an editorial projection.
  • The review's evidence implies a domain-shift risk: SRH images come from specific imagers and tissue-handling protocols, so performance may drop when models meet new scanners or workflows; measuring that drop and calibrating per site is a concrete next experiment the paper does not report.
  • Foundation-model pretraining on publicly shared SRH data could make the technology cumulative, with each participating hospital contributing unlabeled images and gaining better models in return; the paper identifies this as a future direction but does not establish the governance or data-sharing mechanism.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a narrative review of 'Intelligent Histology', a workflow that integrates artificial intelligence (AI) with stimulated Raman histology (SRH) for intraoperative brain tumor diagnosis. It covers the physics of stimulated Raman scattering, preclinical and clinical translation, AI-based histologic and molecular classification, surgical margin detection, integration at multiple European and US centers, computer vision advances (denoising, restoration, colorization, 3D imaging), and future directions including foundation models, multimodal learning, and outcome prediction. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusions, is that intelligent histology represents a transformative intraoperative workflow that can reinvent real-time tumor analysis for 21st century neurosurgery.

Significance. If the cited accuracy figures translate into improved surgical outcomes, the technology described here would be an important contribution to neuro-oncology. The review usefully consolidates a rapidly growing literature and highlights several notable assets: the prospective SRH-CNN, DeepGlioma, and FastGlioma studies; the public OpenSRH dataset; and early self-supervised foundation models for SRH (HiDisc, SPT). The paper also documents a broad multicenter integration effort, which is valuable for readers assessing feasibility. However, the significance as presently argued depends on an unproven inference from diagnostic accuracy to clinical utility, and the review's self-referential evidence base is not critically examined.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions] The central claim that intelligent histology is a 'transformative intraoperative workflow' that can 'reinvent real-time tumor analysis' and 'enable safer, more complete resections' is not supported by the cited evidence. All the key prospective studies cited in the Clinical Translation and Surgical margin analysis sections (SRH-CNN, 93.1% diagnostic accuracy, ref. [14]; DeepGlioma, 93.3% molecular accuracy, ref. [16]; FastGlioma, AUC 92.1%, ref. [4]) measure diagnostic accuracy, not patient outcomes such as extent of resection, progression-free survival, or overall survival. Diagnostic accuracy is a surrogate endpoint, and no randomized or controlled trial with clinical endpoints is cited. The conclusions should be tempered to state that the evidence establishes high diagnostic accuracy with promising but not yet demonstrated clinical utility.
  2. [Clinical Translation and Surgical margin analysis] The review does not report any failure-case analysis, equivocal results, or discussion of settings where AI-SRH underperforms. For example, the stereotactic biopsy study (ref. [36]) is described as finding a minimal tissue size for accurate diagnosis, but the implications for very small biopsies and potential misclassification are not discussed. Without an analysis of failure modes or independent replications outside the consortium, the claim that FastGlioma and DeepGlioma will generalize to routine practice is an assumption. A limitations paragraph should be added, and the review should explicitly identify the external validity gap.
  3. [Review methodology] The review provides no search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or assessment of study quality, and it does not attempt to quantify selection bias. This could be acceptable for a narrative review, but for a manuscript making a 'transformative' claim, the reliance on a selected set of mostly positive studies—several from the authors' own group (refs. [4], [14], [16], [50]-[52])—should be acknowledged and the evidence graded accordingly. Adding a brief statement about how studies were selected and about the independence of the evidence base would strengthen the review.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'periperal' should be 'peripheral'.
  2. [Introduction] The word 'anaylsis' should be 'analysis'.
  3. [Integrating intelligent histology into neurosurgery] 'Cophen's κ' should be 'Cohen's κ'.
  4. [Clinical Translation of Intelligent Histology] There are typos: 'fined-tuned' should be 'fine-tuned' and 'acheived' should be 'achieved'.
  5. [Figure 2] The citation 'Scheffle et al.' should be 'Scheffler et al.'
  6. [References] References [19] and [23] are identical (Hervey-Jumper et al., J. Clin. Oncol. 2023); this duplicate should be removed or distinguished.
  7. [Biomedical computer vision] 'Liu at al.' should be 'Liu et al.' in the sentence describing the 2024 CycleGAN coloring work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; self-citation is frequent but not load-bearing in a circular sense.

full rationale

This manuscript is a narrative review, not a derivation: it introduces the label 'Intelligent Histology' for the existing combination of stimulated Raman histology and AI, then summarizes results from previously published, peer-reviewed studies. The key performance figures it invokes (SRH-CNN 93.1% diagnostic accuracy, DeepGlioma 93.3% molecular accuracy, FastGlioma 92.1% AUC) are reported as externally evaluated prospective multicenter results, not as new predictions fitted in this paper. No equation in the text defines a quantity in terms of the claim it is supposed to support, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' own prior work (e.g., refs 4, 14, 16, 50-52), but those citations function as ordinary literature references to published studies with independent testing cohorts, and the review does not use a self-citation chain to forbid alternative interpretations or to make its conclusion true by definition. The new term 'Intelligent Histology' is a relabeling of a known research program, but the paper transparently credits the underlying studies, so this is not a circular renaming. The absence of a limitations section and the extrapolation from diagnostic accuracy to 'transformative' patient benefit are legitimate external-validity and completeness concerns, but they are not circularity. Score 2 reflects the presence of substantial self-citation without any load-bearing circular reduction.

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

The paper is a narrative review; no free parameters, novel entities, or derivations are introduced. It relies on the domain assumptions that SRH imaging is a valid substrate for AI analysis and that cited prospective results generalize.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SRH images contain sufficient histologic and molecular information for AI classification.
    The entire review presupposes that label-free stimulated Raman images encode diagnostic and molecular features; stated in the Background section and Figure 1.
  • domain assumption Reported results from prospective multicenter studies generalize to the broader neurosurgical population.
    The conclusion of a transformative workflow relies on external validity of cited studies such as FastGlioma and DeepGlioma, without independent replication in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The selection of cited studies is unbiased and complete.
    No systematic review methodology is described, so conclusions may be shaped by the authors' selection of mostly positive results from their own network.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intelligent Histology for Tumor Neurosurgery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDHYZQPL

@misc{pith2026250703037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intelligent Histology for Tumor Neurosurgery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDHYZQPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03037}
}
read the original abstract

The importance of rapid and accurate histologic analysis of surgical tissue in the operating room has been recognized for over a century. Our standard-of-care intraoperative pathology workflow is based on light microscopy and H\&E histology, which is slow, resource-intensive, and lacks real-time digital imaging capabilities. Here, we present an emerging and innovative method for intraoperative histologic analysis, called Intelligent Histology, that integrates artificial intelligence (AI) with stimulated Raman histology (SRH). SRH is a rapid, label-free, digital imaging method for real-time microscopic tumor tissue analysis. SRH generates high-resolution digital images of surgical specimens within seconds, enabling AI-driven tumor histologic analysis, molecular classification, and tumor infiltration detection. We review the scientific background, clinical translation, and future applications of intelligent histology in tumor neurosurgery. We focus on the major scientific and clinical studies that have demonstrated the transformative potential of intelligent histology across multiple neurosurgical specialties, including neurosurgical oncology, skull base, spine oncology, pediatric tumors, and periperal nerve tumors. Future directions include the development of AI foundation models through multi-institutional datasets, incorporating clinical and radiologic data for multimodal learning, and predicting patient outcomes. Intelligent histology represents a transformative intraoperative workflow that can reinvent real-time tumor analysis for 21st century neurosurgery.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Near real-time intraoperative brain tumor diagnosis using stimulated raman histology and deep neural networks

    Todd C Hollon, Balaji Pandian, Arjun R Adapa, Esteban Urias, Akshay V Save, Siri Sahib S Khalsa, Daniel G Eichberg, Randy S D’Amico, Zia U Farooq, Spencer Lewis, Petros D Petridis, Tamara Marie, Ashish H Shah, Hugh J L Garton, Cormac O Maher, Jason A Heth, Erin L McKean, Stephen E Sullivan, Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Parag G Patil, B Gregory Thompson, Oren Sa...

    work page 2020

  2. [16]

    Artificial-intelligence- based molecular classification of diffuse gliomas using rapid, label-free optical imaging

    Todd Hollon, Cheng Jiang, Asadur Chowdury, Mustafa Nasir-Moin, Akhil Kondepudi, Alexander Aabedi, Arjun Adapa, Wajd Al-Holou, Jason Heth, Oren Sagher, Pedro Lowenstein, Maria Castro, Lisa Irina Wadiura, Georg Widhalm, Volker Neuschmelting, David Reinecke, Niklas von Spreckelsen, Mitchel S Berger, Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, John G Golfinos, Matija Snuderl, San...

    work page 2023

  3. [4]

    Foundation models for fast, label-free detection of glioma infiltration

    Akhil Kondepudi, Melike Pekmezci, Xinhai Hou, Katie Scotford, Cheng Jiang, Akshay Rao, Edward S Harake, Asadur Chowdury, Wajd Al-Holou, Lin Wang, Aditya Pandey, Pedro R Lowenstein, Maria G Castro, Lisa Irina Koerner, Thomas Roetzer-Pejrimovsky, Georg Widhalm, Sandra Camelo-Piragua, Misha Movahed-Ezazi, Daniel A Orringer, Honglak Lee, Christian Freudiger, ...

    work page 2025

  4. [36]

    Streamlined intraoperative brain tumor classification and molecular subtyping in stereotactic biopsies using stimulated raman histology and deep learning

    David Reinecke, Daniel Ruess, Anna-Katharina Meissner, Gina Fürtjes, Niklas von Spreckelsen, Adrian Ion-Margineanu, Florian Khalid, Tobias Blau, Thomas Stehle, Abdulkader Al-Shugri, Rein- hard Büttner, Roland Goldbrunner, Maximilian I Ruge, and Volker Neuschmelting. Streamlined intraoperative brain tumor classification and molecular subtyping in stereotac...

    work page 2024

  5. [50]

    Open- SRH: optimizing brain tumor surgery using intraoperative stimulated raman histology

    Cheng Jiang, Asadur Chowdury, Xinhai Hou, Akhil Kondepudi, Christian W Freudiger, Kyle Conway, Sandra Camelo-Piragua, Daniel A Orringer, Honglak Lee, and Todd C Hollon. Open- SRH: optimizing brain tumor surgery using intraoperative stimulated raman histology. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 35(DB):28502–28516, December 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [52]

    A self-supervised framework for learning whole slide representations

    Xinhai Hou, Cheng Jiang, Akhil Kondepudi, Yiwei Lyu, Asadur Chowdury, Honglak Lee, and Todd C Hollon. A self-supervised framework for learning whole slide representations. arXiv [cs.CV], February 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [1]

    The 100-year anniversary of the description of the frozen section procedure

    Anthony A Gal and Philip T Cagle. The 100-year anniversary of the description of the frozen section procedure. JAMA, 294(24):3135–3137, December 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [2]

    Diagnosis of intracranial tumors by supravital technique

    L Eisenhardt and H Cushing. Diagnosis of intracranial tumors by supravital technique. Am. J. Pathol., 6(5):541–552.7, September 1930

    work page 1930

Show all 57 references
  1. [3]

    https://arpa-h.gov/research-and-funding/programs/psi

    The big question. https://arpa-h.gov/research-and-funding/programs/psi . Ac- cessed: 2024-1-1

    2024

  2. [5]

    Label-free biomedical imaging with high sensitivity by stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    Christian W Freudiger, Wei Min, Brian G Saar, Sijia Lu, Gary R Holtom, Chengwei He, Jason C Tsai, Jing X Kang, and X Sunney Xie. Label-free biomedical imaging with high sensitivity by stimulated raman scattering microscopy. Science, 322(5909):1857–1861, December 2008

    2008

  3. [6]

    Improving the accuracy of brain tumor surgery via raman-based technology

    Todd Hollon, Spencer Lewis, Christian W Freudiger, X Sunney Xie, and Daniel A Orringer. Improving the accuracy of brain tumor surgery via raman-based technology. Neurosurg. Focus, 40(3):E9, March 2016

    2016

  4. [7]

    Multicolored stain-free histopathology with coherent raman imaging

    Christian W Freudiger, Rolf Pfannl, Daniel A Orringer, Brian G Saar, Minbiao Ji, Qing Zeng, Linda Ottoboni, Ying Wei, Christian Waeber, John R Sims, Philip L De Jager, Oren Sagher, Martin A Philbert, Xiaoyin Xu, Santosh Kesari, X Sunney Xie, and Geoffrey S Young. Multicolored ...

    2012

  5. [8]

    Rapid, label-free detection of brain tumors with stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    Minbiao Ji, Daniel A Orringer, Christian W Freudiger, Shakti Ramkissoon, Xiaohui Liu, Darryl Lau, Alexandra J Golby, Isaiah Norton, Marika Hayashi, Nathalie Y R Agar, Geoffrey S Young, Cathie Spino, Sandro Santagata, Sandra Camelo-Piragua, Keith L Ligon, Oren Sagher, and X Sun...

    2013

  6. [9]

    Detection of human brain tumor infiltration with quantitative stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    Minbiao Ji, Spencer Lewis, Sandra Camelo-Piragua, Shakti H Ramkissoon, Matija Snuderl, Sriram Venneti, Amanda Fisher-Hubbard, Mia Garrard, Dan Fu, Anthony C Wang, Jason A 11 Heth, Cormac O Maher, Nader Sanai, Timothy D Johnson, Christian W Freudiger, Oren Sagher, Xiaoliang Sun...

    2015

  7. [10]

    Stimulated raman scattering microscopy with a robust fibre laser source

    Christian W Freudiger, Wenlong Yang, Gary R Holtom, Nasser Peyghambarian, X Sunney Xie, and Khanh Q Kieu. Stimulated raman scattering microscopy with a robust fibre laser source. Nat. Photonics, 8(2):153–159, January 2014

    2014

  8. [11]

    Label-free neurosurgical pathology with stimulated raman imaging

    Fa-Ke Lu, David Calligaris, Olutayo I Olubiyi, Isaiah Norton, Wenlong Yang, Sandro Santagata, X Sunney Xie, Alexandra J Golby, and Nathalie Y R Agar. Label-free neurosurgical pathology with stimulated raman imaging. Cancer Res., 76(12):3451–3462, June 2016

    2016

  9. [12]

    Rapid intraoperative histology of unprocessed surgical specimens via fibre-laser-based stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    Daniel A Orringer, Balaji Pandian, Yashar S Niknafs, Todd C Hollon, Julianne Boyle, Spencer Lewis, Mia Garrard, Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Hugh J L Garton, Cormac O Maher, Jason A Heth, Oren Sagher, D Andrew Wilkinson, Matija Snuderl, Sriram Venneti, Shakti H Ramkissoon, Kathryn A...

    2017

  10. [13]

    Rapid intraoperative diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors using stimulated raman histology

    Todd C Hollon, Spencer Lewis, Balaji Pandian, Yashar S Niknafs, Mia R Garrard, Hugh Garton, Cormac O Maher, Kathryn McFadden, Matija Snuderl, Andrew P Lieberman, Karin Muraszko, Sandra Camelo-Piragua, and Daniel A Orringer. Rapid intraoperative diagnosis of pediatric brain tum...

    2018

  11. [15]

    Rapid, label-free detection of diffuse glioma recurrence using intraoperative stimulated raman histology and deep neural networks

    Todd C Hollon, Balaji Pandian, Esteban Urias, Akshay V Save, Arjun R Adapa, Sudharsan Srinivasan, Neil K Jairath, Zia Farooq, Tamara Marie, Wajd N Al-Holou, Karen Eddy, Jason A Heth, Siri Sahib S Khalsa, Kyle Conway, Oren Sagher, Jeffrey N Bruce, Peter Canoll, Christian W Freu...

    2020

  12. [17]

    Fast intraoperative detection of primary CNS lymphoma and differentiation from common CNS tumors using stimulated raman histology and deep learning

    David Reinecke, Nader Maarouf, Andrew Smith, Daniel Alber, John Markert, Nicolas K Goff, Todd C Hollon, Asadur Chowdury, Cheng Jiang, Xinhai Hou, Anna-Katharina Meissner, Gina 12 Fürtjes, Maximilian I Ruge, Daniel Ruess, Thomas Stehle, Abdulkader Al-Shughri, Lisa I Körner, Geo...

    2024

  13. [18]

    Intraoperative classification of CNS lymphoma and glioblastoma by AI-based analysis of stimulated raman histology (SRH)

    Pierre Scheffler, Jakob Straehle, Amir El Rahal, Daniel Erny, Boris Mizaikoff, Ioannis Vasilikos, Marco Prinz, Volker A Coenen, Julia Kühn, Florian Scherer, Dieter Henrik Heiland, Oliver Schnell, Roland Roelz, Jürgen Beck, Peter C Reinacher, and Nicolas Neidert. Intraoperative...

    2025

  14. [19]

    The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary

    David N Louis, Arie Perry, Pieter Wesseling, Daniel J Brat, Ian A Cree, Dominique Figarella- Branger, Cynthia Hawkins, H K Ng, Stefan M Pfister, Guido Reifenberger, Riccardo Soffietti, Andreas von Deimling, and David W Ellison. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the cent...

    2021

  15. [20]

    Interactive effects of molecular, therapeutic, and patient factors on outcome of diffuse low-grade glioma

    Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Yalan Zhang, Joanna J Phillips, Ramin A Morshed, Jacob S Young, Lucie McCoy, Marisa Lafontaine, Tracy Luks, Simon Ammanuel, Sofia Kakaizada, Andrew Egladyous, Andrew Gogos, Javier Villanueva-Meyer, Anny Shai, Gayathri Warrier, Terri Rice, Jason Crane, Ma...

    2023

  16. [21]

    Intraoperative microscopic autofluorescence detection and characterization in brain tumors using stimulated raman histology and two-photon fluorescence

    Gina Fürtjes, David Reinecke, Niklas von Spreckelsen, Anna-Katharina Meißner, Daniel Rueß, Marco Timmer, Christian Freudiger, Adrian Ion-Margineanu, Florian Khalid, Konstantin Watrinet, Christian Mawrin, Andriy Chmyrov, Roland Goldbrunner, Oliver Bruns, and Volker Neuschmelt- ...

    2023

  17. [22]

    Localization of protoporphyrin IX during glioma-resection surgery via paired stimulated raman histology and fluorescence microscopy

    Mustafa Nasir-Moin, L Wadiura, Vlad Sacalean, Devin Juros, Misha Movahed-Ezazi, E K Lock, Andrew Smith, Matthew D Lee, Hannah Weiss, M Müther, Daniel Alber, Sujay Ratna, C Fang, E Suero-Molina, S Hellwig, Walter Stummer, Karl Rössler, Johannes Hainfellner, Georg Widhalm, B Kie...

    2024

  18. [23]

    Interactive effects of molecular, therapeutic, and patient factors on outcome of diffuse low-grade glioma

    Shawn L Hervey-Jumper, Yalan Zhang, Joanna J Phillips, Ramin A Morshed, Jacob S Young, Lucie McCoy, Marisa Lafontaine, Tracy Luks, Simon Ammanuel, Sofia Kakaizada, Andrew Egladyous, Andrew Gogos, Javier Villanueva-Meyer, Anny Shai, Gayathri Warrier, Terri Rice, Jason Crane, Ma...

    2023

  19. [24]

    Extent of resection in patients with glioblastoma: limiting factors, perception of resectability, and effect on survival: Clinical article

    Daniel Orringer, Darryl Lau, Sameer Khatri, Grettel J Zamora-Berridi, Kathy Zhang, Chris Wu, Neeraj Chaudhary, and Oren Sagher. Extent of resection in patients with glioblastoma: limiting factors, perception of resectability, and effect on survival: Clinical article. J. Neuros...

    2012

  20. [25]

    Detection of glioma infiltration at the tumor margin using quantitative stimulated raman scattering histology

    Melike Pekmezci, Ramin A Morshed, Pranathi Chunduru, Balaji Pandian, Jacob Young, Javier E Villanueva-Meyer, Tarik Tihan, Emily A Sloan, Manish K Aghi, Annette M Molinaro, Mitchel S Berger, and Shawn L Hervey-Jumper. Detection of glioma infiltration at the tumor margin using q...

    2021

  21. [26]

    Novel rapid intraoperative qualitative tumor detection by a residual convolutional neural network using label-free stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    David Reinecke, Niklas von Spreckelsen, Christian Mawrin, Adrian Ion-Margineanu, Gina Fürtjes, Stephanie T Jünger, Florian Khalid, Christian W Freudiger, Marco Timmer, Maximilian I Ruge, Roland Goldbrunner, and Volker Neuschmelting. Novel rapid intraoperative qualitative tumor...

    2022

  22. [27]

    Rapid automated analysis of skull base tumor specimens using intraoperative optical imaging and artificial intelligence

    Cheng Jiang, Abhishek Bhattacharya, Joseph R Linzey, Rushikesh S Joshi, Sung Jik Cha, Sud- harsan Srinivasan, Daniel Alber, Akhil Kondepudi, Esteban Urias, Balaji Pandian, Wajd N Al-Holou, Stephen E Sullivan, B Gregory Thompson, Jason A Heth, Christian W Freudiger, Siri Sahib ...

    2022

  23. [28]

    Prospective intraoperative and histologic evaluation of cavernous sinus medial wall invasion by pituitary adenomas and its implications for acromegaly remission outcomes

    Ahmed Mohyeldin, Laurence J Katznelson, Andrew R Hoffman, Karam Asmaro, Saman S Ahmadian, Mostafa M Eltobgy, Jayakar V Nayak, Zara M Patel, Peter H Hwang, and Juan C Fernandez-Miranda. Prospective intraoperative and histologic evaluation of cavernous sinus medial wall invasion...

    2022

  24. [29]

    Stimulated raman histology for rapid and accurate intraoperative diagnosis of CNS tumors: prospective blinded study

    Daniel G Eichberg, Ashish H Shah, Long Di, Alexa M Semonche, George Jimsheleishvili, Evan M Luther, Christopher A Sarkiss, Allan D Levi, Sakir H Gultekin, Ricardo J Komotar, and Michael E Ivan. Stimulated raman histology for rapid and accurate intraoperative diagnosis of CNS t...

    2019

  25. [30]

    Stimulated raman histology for rapid intraoperative diagnosis of gliomas

    Long Di, Daniel G Eichberg, Kevin Huang, Ashish H Shah, Aria M Jamshidi, Evan M Luther, Victor M Lu, Ricardo J Komotar, Michael E Ivan, and Sakir H Gultekin. Stimulated raman histology for rapid intraoperative diagnosis of gliomas. World Neurosurg., 150:e135–e143, June 2021

    2021

  26. [31]

    Rapid intraoperative diagnosis of meningiomas using stimulated raman histology

    Long Di, Daniel G Eichberg, You Jeong Park, Ashish H Shah, Aria M Jamshidi, Evan M Luther, Victor M Lu, Ricardo J Komotar, Michael E Ivan, and Sakir H Gultekin. Rapid intraoperative diagnosis of meningiomas using stimulated raman histology. World Neurosurg., 150:e108–e116, June 2021

    2021

  27. [32]

    Stimulated raman histology in the neurosurgical workflow of a major european neurosurgical center - part a

    Nicolas Neidert, Jakob Straehle, Daniel Erny, Vlad Sacalean, Amir El Rahal, David Steybe, Rainer Schmelzeisen, Andreas Vlachos, Peter Christoph Reinacher, Volker Arnd Coenen, Boris Mizaikoff, Dieter Henrik Heiland, Marco Prinz, Jürgen Beck, and Oliver Schnell. Stimulated raman...

    2022

  28. [33]

    Neuropathological 14 interpretation of stimulated raman histology images of brain and spine tumors: part B.Neurosurg

    Jakob Straehle, Daniel Erny, Nicolas Neidert, Dieter Henrik Heiland, Amir El Rahal, Vlad Sacalean, David Steybe, Rainer Schmelzeisen, Andreas Vlachos, Boris Mizaikoff, Peter Christoph Reinacher, Volker Arnd Coenen, Marco Prinz, Jürgen Beck, and Oliver Schnell. Neuropathologica...

    2022

  29. [34]

    Toward digital histopathological assessment in surgery for central nervous system tumors using stimulated raman histology

    Lisa I Wadiura, Barbara Kiesel, Thomas Roetzer-Pejrimovsky, Mario Mischkulnig, Clemens C Vogel, Johannes A Hainfellner, Christian Matula, Christian W Freudiger, Daniel A Orringer, Adel- heid Wöhrer, Karl Roessler, and Georg Widhalm. Toward digital histopathological assessment ...

    2022

  30. [35]

    Clinical validation of stimulated raman histology for rapid intraoperative diagnosis of central nervous system tumors

    Misha Movahed-Ezazi, Mustafa Nasir-Moin, Camila Fang, Isabella Pizzillo, Kristyn Galbraith, Steven Drexler, Olga A Krasnozhen-Ratush, Seema Shroff, David Zagzag, Christopher William, Daniel Orringer, and Matija Snuderl. Clinical validation of stimulated raman histology for rap...

    2023

  31. [37]

    Image quality assessment and reliability analysis of artificial intelligence-based tumor classification of stimulated raman histology of tumor biobank samples

    Anna-Katharina Meißner, Tobias Blau, David Reinecke, Gina Fürtjes, Lili Leyer, Nina Müller, Niklas von Spreckelsen, Thomas Stehle, Abdulkader Al Shugri, Reinhard Büttner, Roland Gold- brunner, Marco Timmer, and Volker Neuschmelting. Image quality assessment and reliability ana...

    2024

  32. [38]

    Initial experience with label-free stimulated raman scattering microscopy for intraoperative assessment of peripheral nerves

    Thomas J Wilson, Angus Toland, Romain Cayrol, and Hannes Vogel. Initial experience with label-free stimulated raman scattering microscopy for intraoperative assessment of peripheral nerves. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg., 214(107180):107180, March 2022

    2022

  33. [39]

    Denoising of stimulated raman scattering microscopy images via deep learning

    Bryce Manifold, Elena Thomas, Andrew T Francis, Andrew H Hill, and Dan Fu. Denoising of stimulated raman scattering microscopy images via deep learning. Biomed. Opt. Express, 10(8):3860–3874, August 2019

    2019

  34. [40]

    Step-calibrated diffusion for biomedical optical image restoration

    Yiwei Lyu, Sung Jik Cha, Cheng Jiang, Asadur Chowdury, Xinhai Hou, Edward Harake, Akhil Kondepudi, Christian Freudiger, Honglak Lee, and Todd C Hollon. Step-calibrated diffusion for biomedical optical image restoration. arXiv [eess.IV], March 2024

    2024

  35. [41]

    Unpaired image-to-image transla- tion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image transla- tion using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. arXiv [cs.CV], March 2017

    2017

  36. [42]

    Intraoperative assessment of skull base tumors using stimulated raman scattering microscopy

    Kseniya S Shin, Andrew T Francis, Andrew H Hill, Mint Laohajaratsang, Patrick J Cimino, Caitlin S Latimer, Luis F Gonzalez-Cuyar, Laligam N Sekhar, Gordana Juric-Sekhar, and Dan Fu. Intraoperative assessment of skull base tumors using stimulated raman scattering microscopy. Sc...

    2019

  37. [43]

    Virtual formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded staining of fresh brain tissue via stimulated raman CycleGAN model

    Zhijie Liu, Lingchao Chen, Haixia Cheng, Jianpeng Ao, Ji Xiong, Xing Liu, Yaxin Chen, Ying Mao, and Minbiao Ji. Virtual formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded staining of fresh brain tissue via stimulated raman CycleGAN model. Sci. Adv., 10(13):eadn3426, March 2024

    2024

  38. [44]

    Prostate cancer risk stratification via nondestructive 3D pathology with deep learning-assisted gland analysis

    Weisi Xie, Nicholas P Reder, Can Koyuncu, Patrick Leo, Sarah Hawley, Hongyi Huang, Chenyi Mao, Nadia Postupna, Soyoung Kang, Robert Serafin, Gan Gao, Qinghua Han, Kevin W Bishop, 15 Lindsey A Barner, Pingfu Fu, Jonathan L Wright, C Dirk Keene, Joshua C Vaughan, Andrew Janowczy...

    2022

  39. [45]

    Analysis of 3D pathology samples using weakly supervised AI

    Andrew H Song, Mane Williams, Drew F K Williamson, Sarah S L Chow, Guillaume Jaume, Gan Gao, Andrew Zhang, Bowen Chen, Alexander S Baras, Robert Serafin, Richard Colling, Michelle R Downes, Xavier Farré, Peter Humphrey, Clare Verrill, Lawrence D True, Anil V Parwani, Jonathan ...

    2024

  40. [46]

    Super-resolution of biomedical volumes with 2D supervision

    Cheng Jiang, Alexander Gedeon, Yiwei Lyu, Eric Landgraf, Yufeng Zhang, Xinhai Hou, Akhil Kondepudi, Asadur Chowdury, Honglak Lee, and Todd Hollon. Super-resolution of biomedical volumes with 2D supervision. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. Workshops, 2024:6966–6977, June 2024

    2024

  41. [47]

    Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelli- gence

    Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Harlan M Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelli- gence. Nature, 616(7956):259–265, April 2023

    2023

  42. [48]

    Scaling laws for neural language models

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv [cs.LG], January 2020

    2020

  43. [49]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, and Others. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  44. [51]

    Hierarchical discriminative learning improves visual representations of biomedical microscopy

    Cheng Jiang, Xinhai Hou, Akhil Kondepudi, Asadur Chowdury, Christian W Freudiger, Daniel A Orringer, Honglak Lee, and Todd C Hollon. Hierarchical discriminative learning improves visual representations of biomedical microscopy. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Compute...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents. arXiv [cs.CV], April 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. Neural Inf Process Syst, abs/2304.08485, April 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology

    Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew F K Williamson, Richard J Chen, Melissa Zhao, Aaron K Chow, Kenji Ikemura, Ahrong Kim, Dimitra Pouli, Ankush Patel, Amr Soliman, Chengkuan Chen, Tong Ding, Judy J Wang, Georg Gerber, Ivy Liang, Long Phi Le, Anil V Parwani, Luca L Weishaupt, and Fais...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Pan-cancer integrative histology-genomic analysis via multimodal deep learning

    Richard J Chen, Ming Y Lu, Drew F K Williamson, Tiffany Y Chen, Jana Lipkova, Zahra Noor, Muhammad Shaban, Maha Shady, Mane Williams, Bumjin Joo, and Faisal Mahmood. Pan-cancer integrative histology-genomic analysis via multimodal deep learning. Cancer Cell, 40(8):865– 878.e6,...

    2022

  49. [57]

    A pathology foundation model for cancer diagnosis and prognosis prediction

    Xiyue Wang, Junhan Zhao, Eliana Marostica, Wei Yuan, Jietian Jin, Jiayu Zhang, Ruijiang Li, Hongping Tang, Kanran Wang, Yu Li, Fang Wang, Yulong Peng, Junyou Zhu, Jing Zhang, Christopher R Jackson, Jun Zhang, Deborah Dillon, Nancy U Lin, Lynette Sholl, Thomas Denize, David Mer...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.