Benchmarking and Improvement of Artifact Segmentation Methods in H&E-Stained Whole Slide Imaging

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining is the cornerstone of histopathology, yet scalable, quantitative analysis of H&E whole-slide images (WSIs) remains a central challenge in computational pathology. We present Atlas H&E-TME, an AI-based system built on the Atlas family of pathology foundation models that predicts tissue quality, tissue region, and cell type labels across multiple cancer types, yielding over 4,500 quantitative readouts per slide at cell-level resolution. A key challenge to validating such systems is overcoming morphological ambiguity inherent to H&E-only ground truth and the limited scalability of more informed references drawing on modalities such as immunohistochemistry (IHC). We address this with a dual validation framework combining biologically grounded depth with technical and morphological breadth. For depth, we propose an IHC-informed multi-pathologist consensus protocol that substantially improves inter-rater agreement over conventional H&E-only annotation. This yields a molecularly grounded reference against which we compare Atlas H&E-TME and pathologists working from H&E alone. For breadth, we benchmark Atlas H&E-TME on over 200,000 high-confidence H&E-only pathologist annotations across 1,500+ cases spanning eight cancer types and their most common metastatic sites, with subtypes covering >90% of clinical cases per cancer type, drawn from 25+ sources and 8+ scanner models. Benchmarked against the IHC-informed consensus, Atlas H&E-TME matches or exceeds pathologist H&E-only performance and generalizes consistently and robustly across this broad morphological and technical scope. In doing so, Atlas H&E-TME turns the H&E slide -- the most ubiquitous data in pathology -- into a scalable, quantitative window into the tumor and its microenvironment, laying a foundation for the next generation of tissue-based biomarkers in translational and clinical research.

Background and Objective: Quality control is a prerequisite for whole-slide image analysis, yet the benchmarks on which quality-control methods are compared share four properties that make their reported differences hard to interpret: few independent slides, annotation concentrated in a minority of them, pooled ratio metrics with no closed-form standard error, and a single inherited train/test partition. We propose a reliability protocol for such benchmarks. Methods: The protocol quantifies four sources of variability - test-set sampling, training stochasticity, partition composition, and undocumented preprocessing - a claim is reportable only if it survives all four; three of the four cost minutes of compute. We apply it to an independent reconstruction of a published diffusion-based artifact detector, evaluated on the original 24-slide partition and against a supervised baseline. Results: The method's central mechanism reproduces: the auxiliary contrastive term improves pooled F1 from 0.673 to 0.688 and replicates under a second seed (+0.0156, p = 0.031; +0.0190, p = 0.005), although it acts on pen marking rather than the artifact types cited to motivate it. Its comparative claims do not: differences between design variants, and against the supervised baseline, fall inside the uncertainty of the evaluation. Four of 24 slides carry 70% of scored annotated pixels, giving an effective sample size of 6.2, and the inherited partition sits at the 7th percentile. An unreported tissue-restriction step excludes 41.4% of out-of-focus annotation against 2.6% of air bubble; such a gate is confounded with blur by construction. Conclusions: Small-cohort benchmarks support far weaker conclusions than current reporting implies. The four checks are cheap enough to accompany any evaluation on such a resource and separate reproducible effects from differences the evaluation cannot resolve.

Foreground segmentation is the critical first step of every computational pathology pipeline, yet existing methods rely on hand-tuned heuristics or supervised models that overfit to narrow stain and scanner distributions, failing silently on specialised stains such as Jones silver or Elastica van Gieson. We propose a coarse-to-fine approach that recasts foreground segmentation as a visual perception task and leverages general-purpose vision-language models (VLMs) as zero-annotation oracles. Our key insight is that tissue-versus-background discrimination is a natural-image recognition problem, not a histopathological one, so VLMs trained on internet-scale corpora generalise where domain-specific models cannot. We introduce Leica-75, a benchmark of 75 renal transplant whole-slide images spanning three stain families. On Leica-75, our method achieves the highest segmentation quality on out-of-distribution stains (Dice 0.858 +/- 0.027 on Jones, 0.853 +/- 0.041 on EVG) with 7x lower cross-stain variance than the best supervised baseline, while remaining competitive on in-distribution H&E. Few-shot prompting with automatically curated exemplars (Auto-context) rescues hard cases on Stress-32 (n=32), a curated stress-test subset (Dice 0.470 to 0.819 for the 2B model). VLM-based annotation review matches human expert consensus (kappa=0.989 for blur detection; mean precision/recall grading accuracy 0.708 vs. human 0.646 for segmentation mask review). The resulting pseudo-labels are used to distil lightweight student models that are as performant as the teacher model while running for a fraction of the cost. Our framework provides a principled, scalable solution to a persistent infrastructure bottleneck in digital pathology.