Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Artificial intelligence for digital pathology may improve cancer detection and workflow efficiency in low- and middle-income countries, but most models are trained and validated in high-income settings, creating uncertainty about generalizability and real-world deployability under differing pre-analytic and infrastructure conditions. Objective To validate a locally optimized colorectal carcinoma screening pipeline, retrained on data from a local Kenyan cohort, and to assess its feasibility as a sensitivity-forward assistive pre-screening workflow. Methods Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from 136 biopsy-proven colonic adenocarcinoma cases and 20 normal controls from 2 Kenyan institutions were digitized at 40× using a Grundium Ocus scanner. Whole-slide images were partitioned at the case level. A feature-enrichment and candidate tile-selection step identified adenocarcinoma-rich regions. Candidate 512 × 512 RGB tiles were then adjudicated by a gastrointestinal pathologist into adenocarcinoma-containing and benign/non-neoplastic tile libraries. These expert-curated tiles were used to train and validate a supervised convolutional neural network classifier, which generated tile-level malignancy probabilities. Tile scores were aggregated into case-level predictions using Top-K pooling and positive-tile burden rules to support sensitivity-forward screening. Results Among 14,452 tiles from 70 quality-controlled cases and 19 controls, the model achieved strong tile-level discrimination (sensitivity 0.9548, specificity 0.9926, F1 score 0.9686, and AuROC curve 0.966); case-level Top-K aggregation achieved an AuROC of 1.0. Conclusion A locally optimized computational pathology screening pipeline, based on data from a local population, demonstrated robust colorectal adenocarcinoma detection in a Kenyan cohort. These findings suggest that existing machine-learning models can be adapted to local populations through retraining with locally derived data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Githuka et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: