Papers › "No negatives needed": weakly-supervised regression for interpretable tumor detection...
"No negatives needed": weakly-supervised regression for interpretable tumor detection in whole-slide histopathology images
Marina D'Amato, Jeroen van der Laak, Francesco Ciompi
Accurate tumor detection in digital pathology whole-slide images (WSIs) is crucial for cancer diagnosis and treatment planning. Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) has emerged as a widely used approach for weakly-supervised tumor detection with large-scale data without the need for manual annotations. However, traditional MIL methods often depend on classification tasks that require tumor-free cases as negative examples, which are challenging to obtain in real-world clinical workflows, especially for surgical resection specimens. We address this limitation by reformulating tumor detection as a regression task, estimating tumor percentages from WSIs, a clinically available target across multiple cancer types. In this paper, we provide an analysis of the proposed weakly-supervised regression framework by applying it to multiple organs, specimen types and clinical scenarios. We characterize the robustness of our framework to tumor percentage as a noisy regression target, and introduce a novel concept of amplification technique to improve tumor detection sensitivity when learning from small tumor regions. Finally, we provide interpretable insights into the model's predictions by analyzing visual attention and logit maps. Our code is available at https://github.com/DIAGNijmegen/tumor-percentage-mil-regression.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections