Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Clustered Patch Embeddings for Permutation-Invariant Classification of Whole Slide Images

T0 review · 4 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 Clustering patch embeddings compresses a gigapixel whole-slide image into ten cluster-mean vectors while preserving slide-level classification accuracy on EGFR mutation and metastasis prediction.

desk verdict The efficiency idea is worth testing, but the paper never states whether clustering is fit on test slides, which puts the headline accuracies in question. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08936 v1 pith:TNSFPMCQ submitted 2024-11-13 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Ravi Kant Gupta , Shounak Das , Amit Sethi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords wholeslideimagespatchembeddingsK-meansclusteringpermutationinvariancemultipleinstancelearningdigitalpathologyEGFRmutationpredictionCamelyon17
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 tries to establish that a gigapixel whole-slide image can be reduced to a compact set of cluster-mean embedding vectors without sacrificing slide-level classification accuracy. The recipe is to extract patch embeddings with a pretrained encoder, cluster them into ten groups with K-means, replace each cluster by its mean vector, and feed the concatenated means to a permutation-invariant classifier. On TCGA Lung EGFR mutation prediction, the best configuration reaches 0.83 accuracy, and on Camelyon17 metastasis detection it reaches 0.75, comparable to the baseline. If this holds, gigapixel slides become tractable for memory-limited analysis while retaining clinically relevant signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the K-means cluster-mean representation of a slide: every patch embedding is assigned to one of ten clusters, and each cluster is summarized by its mean vector, giving a single vector of ten times the embedding dimension. Attention-based multiple instance learning then treats the ten cluster means as a bag of instances and learns an attention weight per cluster, which both aggregates them permutation-invariantly and indicates which clusters drive the prediction. This combination of compact cluster summaries with learned attention over them is what carries the argument that a gigapixel image can be compressed without losing classification accuracy.

What would settle it

Re-run the full pipeline on Camelyon17 with the nucleus-count threshold varied from zero (keeping all tissue patches) to, say, 30, and observe whether the reported 0.75 accuracy changes; a material shift would show the preprocessing filter, not clustering, is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a whole-slide image's diagnostic content can be captured by the geometry of its patch-embedding distribution rather than by the full set of patch features. After clustering all patch embeddings into ten clusters and replacing each cluster by its mean vector, the concatenated ten mean vectors form a single global representation of the slide. Feeding this representation to attention-based multiple instance learning, which learns weights over the cluster means, makes the pipeline permutation-invariant and yields accuracy comparable to the classical approach: 0.83 for EGFR mutation classification on TCGA Lung and 0.75 for metastasis detection on Camelyon17. The paper also reports an ablation showing that clustering is not always beneficial, and it concludes that no single encoder-classifier pair is universally optimal.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that the diagnostically relevant regions are exactly the high-cellularity patches, since it discards every patch with fewer than ten detected nuclei before clustering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A gigapixel slide can be stored and processed as a single vector of roughly ten times the embedding dimension, cutting memory requirements relative to keeping all patch features.
  • Slide-level labels alone suffice, since clustering is unsupervised and the classifier learns from slide labels through multiple instance learning.
  • Attention weights over cluster means give a readout of which tissue patterns drove a decision, which could guide pathologist review by pointing back to the clusters and patches of interest.
  • The optimal encoder-classifier combination differs by dataset, so deploying the method means choosing the pair empirically for the task rather than assuming one backbone is best.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the cluster-then-aggregate recipe is not tied to pathology: any gigapixel or high-resolution imaging task with slide-level labels could use the same compression, as long as the feature distribution is clusterable.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the elbow-chosen value of ten clusters with learned or swept cluster counts and check whether accuracy is stable; the fixed K is a heuristic, not an optimized parameter.
  • Because cluster means are built without labels, the representation could be pretrained on unlabeled slides and then reused for multiple downstream slide-level tasks, which would help in low-annotation clinical settings.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline for whole-slide image (WSI) classification in which each slide is preprocessed to remove artifacts, detect tissue, and tile into 512x512 patches; patches with fewer than 10 detected nuclei are discarded. Patch features are extracted with pretrained encoders (SimCLR, ResNet-50, EfficientNet, RegNet, ConvNeXT-Tiny, Swin-Tiny), K-means clustering is applied to the resulting patch embeddings with k selected by the elbow method, and each slide is represented by the concatenated mean vectors of the k clusters. This compact representation is then classified with an MLP, a Swin-Transformer, or an attention-based MIL classifier. The paper reports accuracy, precision, and recall for binary EGFR mutation classification on a TCGA lung dataset (best 0.83 accuracy with ResNet-50 + clustering + attention MIL) and binary metastasis classification on Camelyon17 (best 0.75 accuracy), and concludes that the cluster-mean representation matches or exceeds a previously proposed baseline.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the compact cluster-mean representation would be a practically interesting way to reduce a gigapixel slide to a fixed-size vector while retaining classification performance, and the combination of clustering with permutation-invariant classifiers could be useful for low-resource WSI analysis. However, the paper currently does not establish the validity of its evaluation protocol: the train/test split and the scope of the K-means fit are not specified, no error bars or significance tests are given, and the only comparison is to an unpublished baseline [21] from the same group. The central computational claim is plausible, but the evidence presented is not yet sufficient to support it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 and Figure 4] The evaluation protocol is not specified, and this is load-bearing for every number in Tables 1 and 2. The manuscript never states how the data are split into train, validation, and test sets, nor whether the K-means centroids and the elbow-method choice of k are computed on the training portion only. Section 3 says patch embeddings 'were then clustered using the K-means algorithm' and Section 4 says k=10 is set 'for the features of both datasets (TCGA and Camelyon-17)' based on the elbow plot. If the centroids and elbow curve are computed on all slides, including test slides, then each test slide's cluster-mean representation is a function of the test-set feature distribution, and the reported 0.83 and 0.75 accuracies are not valid held-out results. The authors must clarify and, if necessary, redo the experiments with clustering and k-selection performed inside each training fold, then frozen before encoding test slides.
  2. [Section 3 and Tables 1-2] The preprocessing rule that excludes patches with fewer than 10 nuclei is an untested modeling assumption that can systematically remove informative tissue. The manuscript justifies this by saying 'the Region of Interest is the tumor region,' but the Camelyon17 discussion in Section 5 explicitly concedes that 'regions of high cellularity may not always serve as reliable morphological biomarkers for metastasis detection.' Since the same threshold is applied to both datasets, and no ablation over the threshold is reported, it is unclear whether the reported accuracies are an artifact of discarding stroma, negative-tissue, and low-cellularity tumor patches. The authors should either justify the threshold with data or report an ablation across nucleus-count thresholds.
  3. [Section 5, Tables 1-2] The quantitative claims are not supported by error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and the baseline comparison is incomplete. The text states that the method gives results 'comparable with the classical approach used in [21],' but no numerical baseline results are reported, and [21] is an unpublished work that shares authors with this paper. The paper also does not compare to standard current WSI classifiers such as CLAM, TransMIL, or ABMIL on either dataset. Given the small dataset sizes (159 TCGA slides and an unspecified number of Camelyon17 slides), the reported differences between configurations could be within noise. The authors should provide split-level statistics and at least one non-self baseline comparison.
  4. [Section 3 and Figure 4] The manuscript does not define what happens when a slide has no patches assigned to one or more of the k clusters. The concatenated cluster-mean vector is only permutation-invariant if the cluster order is fixed by a single set of centroids learned on a training set; if clustering is instead performed separately for each slide, the cluster indices have no semantic correspondence across slides and the representation is not well-defined. The authors should state explicitly whether K-means is fit globally, per slide, or per dataset, and how empty clusters are handled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains repeated and informal phrasing (e.g., 'our novel approach' appears twice, and the long final sentence is difficult to parse). The authors should tighten the abstract and avoid marketing-style language.
  2. [Reference [21]] Reference [21] is described only as '2023' with no arXiv identifier, DOI, or venue. Since it is used as the main baseline and appears to be same-group work, the authors should provide a full citation and disclose the relationship.
  3. [Table 1] In the RegNet rows, the classifier is cited as 'Swin-Transformer [11]' but [11] is ConvNeXT; it should be [12]. Also the recall value '0.6' should be '0.60' for consistency with the other entries.
  4. [Section 4.0.2] The text says 'we are experimenting with fewer WSIs of the Camelyon17 dataset' but does not state how many slides were used or how the 500-slide dataset was subsampled. The exact number of slides and the split must be reported.
  5. [Section 3] The description of Swin-Tiny as a classifier on cluster-mean vectors is unclear: Swin-Transformer is designed for grid-structured image inputs, and the paper does not explain how the concatenated cluster-mean vector is reshaped or tokenized for Swin. Please clarify the input format.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the main empirical pipeline is self-contained, with a minor self-referential baseline ([21]) and transductive model-selection concerns that do not reduce the claimed results to their inputs by construction.

  1. other [Section 5, Results; reference [21]]
    "This means vectors are input for various classifiers such as Swin-Transformer, MLP, and AMIL results comparable results with the classical approach used in [ 21]."

    The only explicit baseline mentioned for the paper's comparative claim is reference [21], which is prior work by two of this paper's authors (Ravi Kant Gupta and Amit Sethi). Because the comparison target is the authors' own unpublished system and no baseline accuracy is reproduced in this paper, the claim of being comparable to 'the classical approach' is partly a self-referential assertion rather than an independent benchmark. The reported accuracies in Tables 1 and 2 are nonetheless generated by the current pipeline and are not mathematically forced by [21], so this is a minor self-citation issue rather than a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation whose output is equal to an input by construction. The main claim—0.83 accuracy on TCGA-Lung EGFR and 0.75 on Camelyon17 with clustered ResNet-50 features plus Attention MIL—is an empirical result of a concrete pipeline (preprocessing with nucleus-count filtering, ImageNet-pretrained encoders, K-means clustering, and permutation-invariant classifiers). None of these steps defines the target accuracy in terms of the cluster representation, and the Tables report measurements rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The selection of k=10 by the elbow method on the full feature sets is a potential transductive model-selection leak, and the nucleus-count>=10 ROI filter shapes the cellularity interpretation, but both are experimental-validity concerns, not definitional circularity. The only self-referential element is the baseline [21], which shares authors and is not fully specified; it is used as a comparison point, not to derive the paper's own numbers. The score is therefore 2: no significant circularity, with a minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted hyperparameters (k=10, nucleus threshold 10, augmentation settings) and on domain assumptions about transferability of ImageNet features, informativeness of cluster means, and the nucleus-count filter. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • number of clusters k = 10 (both datasets)
    Chosen by the Elbow Method on within-cluster sum of squares for k=2 to 30 (Fig. 3), using the same datasets as the final evaluation, with no separate validation split or sensitivity analysis.
  • nucleus count threshold = 10
    Hand-set threshold in Section 3: patches with fewer than 10 nuclei are excluded because the ROI is assumed to be tumor. This directly controls which patches enter the classifier and is contradicted by the paper's Camelyon17 discussion.
  • augmentation hyperparameters = scale range (0.9, 1), jitter 0.01, mixup alpha 0.2
    Set in Section 4.0.1 without tuning details or sensitivity analysis; classification outcomes depend on these values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained ImageNet features transfer to histopathology patches without fine-tuning.
    Section 4.0.1 uses ImageNet-pretrained SimCLR, ResNet-50, EfficientNet, RegNet, ConvNeXT, and Swin as frozen feature extractors; transferability to H&E pathology is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption K-means cluster means of patch features preserve slide-level diagnostic information.
    Section 3 claims cluster centroids/means compactly represent WSI content; no evidence is given that ten cluster means retain enough class-discriminative information for classification.
  • ad hoc to paper Patches with nucleus count at least 10 are the informative tumor regions, and excluding lower-count patches improves classification.
    Section 3 excludes patches with fewer than 10 nuclei. This load-bearing preprocessing choice is undermined by the paper's own statement that high cellularity may not be a reliable biomarker for metastasis in Camelyon17.
  • domain assumption Attention MIL over a bag of ten cluster means provides permutation-invariant slide classification.
    Section 3 adopts Attention MIL [18] to handle permutation; attention over a set is permutation invariant in principle, but the paper does not justify that ten cluster means are sufficient statistics for a slide.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Clustered Patch Embeddings for Permutation-Invariant Classification of Whole Slide Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNSFPMCQ

@misc{pith2026241108936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Clustered Patch Embeddings for Permutation-Invariant Classification of Whole Slide Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNSFPMCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08936}
}
read the original abstract

Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) is a cornerstone of digital pathology, offering detailed insights critical for diagnosis and research. Yet, the gigapixel size of WSIs imposes significant computational challenges, limiting their practical utility. Our novel approach addresses these challenges by leveraging various encoders for intelligent data reduction and employing a different classification model to ensure robust, permutation-invariant representations of WSIs. A key innovation of our method is the ability to distill the complex information of an entire WSI into a single vector, effectively capturing the essential features needed for accurate analysis. This approach significantly enhances the computational efficiency of WSI analysis, enabling more accurate pathological assessments without the need for extensive computational resources. This breakthrough equips us with the capability to effectively address the challenges posed by large image resolutions in whole-slide imaging, paving the way for more scalable and effective utilization of WSIs in medical diagnostics and research, marking a significant advancement in the field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thumbnail image samples of TCGA Lung data [19] (first row) and Camelyon17 dataset [20] (bottom row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Preprocessing pipeline: (a) Snapshot of sample image, (b) Tissue detection, (c) Tiling of WSI, and (d) Patches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Elbow plot illustrating the variation of within-cluster sum of squares (WCSS) for k = 2 to 30 in K-means [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model Workflow Feature Extractor Clustering Classifier Accuracy Precision Recall ResNet-50[8] No MLP [14] 0.71 0.71 0.74 ResNet-50 [8] Yes AMIL [18] 0.83 0.81 0.83 ResNet-50 [8] Yes Swin-Transformer [12] 0.73 0.74 0.71 SimCLR [5] Yes Swin-Transformer [12] 0.75 0.74 0.7…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Egfr mutation prediction of lung biopsy images using deep learning

    Ravi Kant Gupta, Shivani Nandgaonkar, Nikhil Cherian Kurian, Tripti Bameta, Subhash Yadav, Rajiv Kumar Kaushal, Swapnil Rane, and Amit Sethi. Egfr mutation prediction of lung biopsy images using deep learning. 2023

    2023

  2. [1]

    Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology

    Liron Pantanowitz, Paul N Valenstein, Andrew J Evans, Keith J Kaplan, John D Pfeifer, David C Wilbur, Laura C Collins, and Terence J Colgan. Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. Journal of pathology informatics, 2(1):36, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    Utilizing whole slide images for pathology peer review and working groups

    David E Malarkey, Gabrielle A Willson, Cynthia J Willson, E Terence Adams, Greg R Olson, William M Witt, Susan A Elmore, Jerry F Hardisty, Michael C Boyle, Torrie A Crabbs, et al. Utilizing whole slide images for pathology peer review and working groups. Toxicologic pathology, 43(8):1149–1157, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Digital imaging in pathology–current applications and challenges

    Elena Brachtel and Yukako Yagi. Digital imaging in pathology–current applications and challenges. Journal of biophotonics, 5(4):327–335, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Whole slide imaging (wsi) in pathology: current perspectives and future directions

    Neeta Kumar, Ruchika Gupta, and Sanjay Gupta. Whole slide imaging (wsi) in pathology: current perspectives and future directions. Journal of digital imaging, 33(4):1034–1040, 2020

    2020

  6. [5]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  7. [6]

    Dual-stream multiple instance learning network for whole slide image classification with self-supervised contrastive learning

    Bin Li, Yin Li, and Kevin W Eliceiri. Dual-stream multiple instance learning network for whole slide image classification with self-supervised contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 14318–14328, 2021

    2021

  8. [7]

    Efficient quality control of whole slide pathology images with human-in-the-loop training

    Abhijeet Patil, Harsh Diwakar, Jay Sawant, Nikhil Cherian Kurian, Subhash Yadav, Swapnil Rane, Tripti Bameta, and Amit Sethi. Efficient quality control of whole slide pathology images with human-in-the-loop training. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 14:100306, 2023

    2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    S Jian, H Kaiming, R Shaoqing, and Z Xiangyu. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  2. [9]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks

    Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 6105–6114. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Regnet: Multimodal sensor registration using deep neural networks

    Nick Schneider, Florian Piewak, Christoph Stiller, and Uwe Franke. Regnet: Multimodal sensor registration using deep neural networks. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1803–1810, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11976–11986, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Cluster-to-conquer: A framework for end-to-end multi-instance learning for whole slide image classification

    Yash Sharma, Aman Shrivastava, Lubaina Ehsan, Christopher A Moskaluk, Sana Syed, and Donald Brown. Cluster-to-conquer: A framework for end-to-end multi-instance learning for whole slide image classification. In Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, pages 682–698. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  7. [14]

    Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation

    Simon Haykin. Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. Prentice Hall PTR, 1994

    1994

  8. [15]

    A framework for multiple-instance learning

    Oded Maron and Tomás Lozano-Pérez. A framework for multiple-instance learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 10, 1997

    1997

  9. [16]

    A survey on vision transformer

    Kai Han, Yunhe Wang, Hanting Chen, Xinghao Chen, Jianyuan Guo, Zhenhua Liu, Yehui Tang, An Xiao, Chunjing Xu, Yixing Xu, et al. A survey on vision transformer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(1):87–110, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision

    Bichen Wu, Chenfeng Xu, Xiaoliang Dai, Alvin Wan, Peizhao Zhang, Zhicheng Yan, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Joseph Gonzalez, Kurt Keutzer, and Peter Vajda. Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03677, 2020. 7

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Attention-based deep multiple instance learning

    Maximilian Ilse, Jakub Tomczak, and Max Welling. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2127–2136. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

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

    Nicolas Coudray, Paolo Santiago Ocampo, Theodore Sakellaropoulos, Navneet Narula, Matija Snuderl, David Fenyö, Andre L Moreira, Narges Razavian, and Aristotelis Tsirigos. Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep le...

    2018

  13. [20]

    From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the camelyon17 challenge

    Peter Bandi, Oscar Geessink, Quirine Manson, Marcory Van Dijk, Maschenka Balkenhol, Meyke Hermsen, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Byungjae Lee, Kyunghyun Paeng, Aoxiao Zhong, et al. From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level:...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Deep learning for whole slide image analysis: an overview

    Neofytos Dimitriou, Ognjen Arandjelovi´c, and Peter D Caie. Deep learning for whole slide image analysis: an overview. Frontiers in medicine, 6:264, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: techniques and applications

    Asmaa Ibrahim, Paul Gamble, Ronnachai Jaroensri, Mohammed M Abdelsamea, Craig H Mermel, Po- Hsuan Cameron Chen, and Emad A Rakha. Artificial intelligence in digital breast pathology: techniques and applications. The Breast, 49:267–273, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Understanding of a convolutional neural network

    Saad Albawi, Tareq Abed Mohammed, and Saad Al-Zawi. Understanding of a convolutional neural network. In 2017 international conference on engineering and technology (ICET), pages 1–6. Ieee, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Transformers in vision: A survey

    Salman Khan, Muzammal Naseer, Munawar Hayat, Syed Waqas Zamir, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Mubarak Shah. Transformers in vision: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(10s):1–41, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Patch-based convolutional neural network for whole slide tissue image classification

    Le Hou, Dimitris Samaras, Tahsin M Kurc, Yi Gao, James E Davis, and Joel H Saltz. Patch-based convolutional neural network for whole slide tissue image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2424–2433, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Monte-carlo sampling applied to multiple instance learning for histological image classification

    Marc Combalia and Verónica Vilaplana. Monte-carlo sampling applied to multiple instance learning for histological image classification. In International Workshop on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysis, pages 274–281. Springer, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Da-refinenet: a dual input whole slide image segmentation algorithm based on attention

    Ziqiang Li, Rentuo Tao, Qianrun Wu, and Bin Li. Da-refinenet: a dual input whole slide image segmentation algorithm based on attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06358, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rectified cross-entropy and upper transition loss for weakly supervised whole slide image classifier

    Hanbo Chen, Xiao Han, Xinjuan Fan, Xiaoying Lou, Hailing Liu, Junzhou Huang, and Jianhua Yao. Rectified cross-entropy and upper transition loss for weakly supervised whole slide image classifier. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd I...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Dynamic clustering using particle swarm optimization with application in unsupervised image classification

    M Omran, A Salman, and A Engelbrecht. Dynamic clustering using particle swarm optimization with application in unsupervised image classification. In Fifth World Enformatika Conference (ICCI 2005), Prague, Czech Republic, pages 199–204, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Multiple instance learning for heterogeneous images: Training a cnn for histopathology

    Heather D Couture, James Stephen Marron, Charles M Perou, Melissa A Troester, and Marc Niethammer. Multiple instance learning for heterogeneous images: Training a cnn for histopathology. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st Internatio...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Deep fisher vector coding for whole slide image classification

    Amir Akbarnejad, Nilanjan Ray, and Gilbert Bigras. Deep fisher vector coding for whole slide image classification. In 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 243–246. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Convolutional networks with dense connectivity

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Geoff Pleiss, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Convolutional networks with dense connectivity. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 44(12):8704–8716, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    https://github.com/DigitalSlideArchive/HistomicsTK

    Histomicstk. https://github.com/DigitalSlideArchive/HistomicsTK. Accessed: [12/10/2023]

    2023

  27. [35]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE transactions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    1982

  28. [36]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations

    James MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1, pages 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA, 1967. 8

    1967

  29. [37]

    Integration k-means clustering method and elbow method for identification of the best customer profile cluster

    MA Syakur, B Khusnul Khotimah, EMS Rochman, and Budi Dwi Satoto. Integration k-means clustering method and elbow method for identification of the best customer profile cluster. In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, volume 336, page 012017. IOP Publishing, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge.International journal of computer vision, 115:211–252, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    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

Pith tools

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