Artificial Intelligence-enabled Histological Analysis in Preclinical Respiratory Disease Models: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Histological analysis is a cornerstone of preclinical respiratory disease research, enabling assessment of pathology, therapeutic effects, and mechanisms. However, conventional approaches rely on manual scoring, which is subjective, time-consuming, and difficult to scale due to low throughput and inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, offers potential to automate histology workflows, but its use and evaluation in preclinical respiratory models have not been synthesized. We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, searching MEDLINE and Embase (inception–January 2025) for preclinical studies using AI to analyze histology in respiratory disease models. Screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Of 6271 studies screened, 29 met inclusion criteria. Most used murine models (76%) and investigated lung cancer (28%), pulmonary fibrosis (24%), or tuberculosis (17%). Hematoxylin and eosin was the most common stain (48%), with others targeting collagen or immune markers. AI tasks included image classification (n=20), segmentation (n=10), and object detection (n=4), predominantly using convolutional neural networks (69%). Preprocessing methods (e.g., stain normalization) were common, but annotation and training practices were inconsistently reported. Performance was generally high (accuracy ≥90%; 7 studies) though validation metrics varied, and external validation was absent. Most studies used “black box” models, with minimal application of explainability techniques. Reproducibility measures, such as sharing datasets or code were rarely reported. AI tools are poised to transform histological analysis in preclinical respiratory research. By addressing gaps in validation, transparency, and standardization, the field can harness these technologies to deliver robust, efficient, and scalable workflows. Registration: Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NM94E
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 | 0.015 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".