A Comparison of Whole Slide Image Analysis and Diagnostic Field Selection in Pathology AI under Finite Resources
Abstract
An important question in pathology AI is how to allocate limited analytical resources between broad coverage of a whole slide image (WSI) and detailed analysis of selected regions. We compared a minimal WSI-AI model designed for broad search with Diagnostic Field Selection AI (DFS-AI), which uses a coarse overview to select diagnostically relevant fields for detailed analysis. Three minimal models introduced localization information, contextual discrimination, and spatial structure in sequence. In Model I, WSI-AI was favored when coarse localization was uninformative or costly. When coarse observation provided useful ranking information, DFS-AI was favored over an intermediate range of resources; WSI-AI again became preferable when resources allowed nearly complete fine observation. In Model II, background heterogeneity generated distractors. In a WSI control given the same local context as DFS-AI, most of the original DFS advantage was explained by local background correction, while coarse candidate selection provided a smaller additional benefit. In Model III, larger contiguous lesions were easier for WSI-AI to discover but more difficult to characterize completely with a finite budget for fine observation. The DFS advantage for complete characterization persisted when the comparator used the same field sized unit of fine analysis and when success was defined symmetrically as 100%, 90%, or 80% lesion unit coverage. Together, the models support a framework in which the preferred strategy changes with available resources and depends on the information available for selection, its acquisition cost, lesion structure, and the diagnostic endpoint. This framework clarifies when limited pathology AI resources should be devoted to broad WSI coverage and when they should be concentrated on selected Diagnostic Fields.
Related
- Diagnostic challenge in veterinary pathology: Late term abortion in a cow
- Imagine No Resources: Attention Is Selection and Normalization for Choice
- WILSON - Multi-magnification composites as a foundation for patient-level pathology analysis and diagnostic text generation
- Retrospective Analysis of Veterinary Pathology Laboratory Submissions to Characterise Diagnostic Patterns in South Africa.
- Diagnostic pitfalls and unmet needs in neuroendocrine neoplasms: The added value of collegial expert pathology review through the national TENpath network
BibTeX
@misc{tsuruyama2026comparison,
title = {{A Comparison of Whole Slide Image Analysis and Diagnostic Field Selection in Pathology AI under Finite Resources}},
author = {Tatsuaki Tsuruyama},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2608.10846},
eprint = {2608.10846},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10846},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - A Comparison of Whole Slide Image Analysis and Diagnostic Field Selection in Pathology AI under Finite Resources
AU - Tatsuaki Tsuruyama
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/12
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2608.10846
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10846
AB - An important question in pathology AI is how to allocate limited analytical resources between broad coverage of a whole slide image (WSI) and detailed analysis of selected regions. We compared a minimal WSI-AI model designed for broad search with Diagnostic Field Selection AI (DFS-AI), which uses a coarse overview to select diagnostically relevant fields for detailed analysis. Three minimal models introduced localization information, contextual discrimination, and spatial structure in sequence. In Model I, WSI-AI was favored when coarse localization was uninformative or costly. When coarse observation provided useful ranking information, DFS-AI was favored over an intermediate range of resources; WSI-AI again became preferable when resources allowed nearly complete fine observation. In Model II, background heterogeneity generated distractors. In a WSI control given the same local context as DFS-AI, most of the original DFS advantage was explained by local background correction, while coarse candidate selection provided a smaller additional benefit. In Model III, larger contiguous lesions were easier for WSI-AI to discover but more difficult to characterize completely with a finite budget for fine observation. The DFS advantage for complete characterization persisted when the comparator used the same field sized unit of fine analysis and when success was defined symmetrically as 100%, 90%, or 80% lesion unit coverage. Together, the models support a framework in which the preferred strategy changes with available resources and depends on the information available for selection, its acquisition cost, lesion structure, and the diagnostic endpoint. This framework clarifies when limited pathology AI resources should be devoted to broad WSI coverage and when they should be concentrated on selected Diagnostic Fields.
ER -