Advancing Histopathology with Deep Learning Under Data Scarcity: A Decade in Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years witnessed remarkable progress in computational histopathology, largely fueled by deep learning. This brought the clinical adoption of deep learning-based tools within reach, promising significant benefits to healthcare, offering a valuable second opinion on diagnoses, streamlining complex tasks, and mitigating the risks of inconsistency and bias in clinical decisions. However, a well-known challenge is that deep learning models may contain up to billions of parameters; supervising their training effectively would require vast labeled datasets to achieve reliable generalization and noise resilience. In medical imaging, particularly histopathology, amassing such extensive labeled data collections places additional demands on clinicians and incurs higher costs, which hinders the art's progress. Addressing this challenge, researchers devised various strategies for leveraging deep learning with limited data and annotation availability. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of deep learning applications in histopathology, with a focus on the challenges posed by data scarcity over the past decade. We systematically categorize and compare various approaches, evaluate their distinct contributions using benchmarking tables, and highlight their respective advantages and limitations. Additionally, we address gaps in existing reviews and identify underexplored research opportunities, underscoring the potential for future advancements in this field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".