Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 5;13(3):1899–1913. doi: 10.21037/qims-22-220

Table 3. Performance comparison of the proposed MIL method between different histological subtypes in test datasets and external validation dataset.

Standard metrics Histological subtype: I (%) (95% CI) Histological subtype: II (%) (95% CI) Histological subtype: mixed (%) (95% CI)
Internal test dataset (420 WSIs from 228 patients)
   AUC 92.7 (89.8–95.7) 97.9 (94.6–100.0) 92.9 (88.1–97.7)
   Sensitivity 80.2 (70.6–87.8) 97.0 (84.2–99.9) 95.3 (86.9–99.0)
   Specificity 92.2 (88.4–95.0) 95.1 (83.5–99.4) 80.4 (66.1–90.6)
   PPV 76.8 (68.2–85.5) 94.1 (80.6–99.8) 87.1 (76.3–97.1)
   NPV 93.5 (89.5–95.9) 97.5 (86.7–99.7) 92.5 (80.1–96.7)
External validation dataset (533 WSIs from 261 patients)
   AUC 78.3 (74.1–82.5) 76.2 (59.3–93.1) 63.6 (48.3–79.0)
   Sensitivity 60.8 (54.5–66.8) 62.5 (40.6–81.2) 42.4 (25.5–60.8)
   Specificity 84.3 (78.4–89.1) 100.0 (59.0–NaN) 94.1 (71.3–99.9)
   PPV 83.3 (77.2–86.7) 100.0 (75.5–100.0) 93.3 (68.5–98.7)
   NPV 62.4 (56.2–71.6) 43.8 (24.2–NaN) 45.7 (28.1–97.2)

Histological subtype I: endometrioid adenocarcinoma as the main histological type and mucinous adenocarcinoma; Histological subtype II: non endometrioid adenocarcinoma; Mixed subtype: composing of subtype I + II, where at least one component is either serous or clear cell. MIL, multiple instance-learning; WSI, whole slide image; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; NaN, not a number.