PTC Segmentation


Logo for PTC Segmentation

About

Editors:
Contact email:
Image Version:
cbe1c749-74e4-4ba6-a4e2-df0b72914526 — Sept. 16, 2025
Model Version:
2baf52f4-9abd-4ef4-822b-2f32db8321e3 — Aug. 19, 2025

Summary

This algorithm is trained on 59 PAS-stained Whole Slide Images (WSIs) of kidney transplant biopsies to be able to segment peritubular capillaries (PTCs) from the rest of the tissue. We had access to a total of 69 WSI's from 64 different patients. The underlying architecture is based on nnU-Net V2 for Pathology, a self-configuring deep learning framework optimized for biomedical image segmentation. By distinguishing PTCs from surrounding tissue structures, this tool can support quantitative morphometric analyses, facilitate large-scale research studies, and potentially aid in diagnostic workflows.

Mechanism

Target Population

This algorithm is intended for renal pathologists evaluating kidney transplant biopsies. It supports the assessment of Banff lesion scores, with a particular focus on assisting in the identification and grading of peritubular capillaritis.

Algorithm Description

The algorithm is based on nnU-Net V2 for pathology, trained to segment peritubular capillaries (PTCs) and support PTC scoring. A dataset of 69 PAS-stained whole-slide images (WSIs) was used. Preprocessing included filtering annotations to retain only confident and visible PTCs.

The model was trained with 5-fold cross-validation using a balanced sampler with classes: background and PTC. Training was performed with a patch size of 512, a spacing of 0.5, and 200 epochs. During inference, sliding-window predictions were generated with Gaussian weighting to reduce patch-edge artifacts. Predictions across folds were averaged at the softmax level, and uncertainty was estimated from the variance across folds, allowing pathologists to assess model reliability.

Inputs and Outputs

Inputs: PAS-stained kidney transplant biopsy WSIs and tissue masks (TIF format).

Outputs: Segmentation masks of PTC regions relevant for Banff lesion scoring (TIF format). Optionally, uncertainty maps are generated to indicate regions where model predictions may be less reliable, highlighting areas for closer review.


Interfaces

This algorithm implements all of the following input-output combinations:

Inputs Outputs
1
    Tissue Mask
    Kidney Transplant Biopsy
    Kidney Segmentation

Validation and Performance

The algorithm was evaluated on a test set of 20 PAS-stained kidney transplant biopsy whole slide images. For the binary task of peritubular capillary (PTC) versus other tissue segmentation, the model achieved a mean Dice coefficient of 0.751 (range: 0.600–0.845) and a mean Jaccard Index of 0.607 (range: 0.432–0.732). Precision and recall values varied across slides, with high-performing cases showing precision and recall above 0.86, and lower-performing cases generally associated with reduced PTC recognizability. Performance differences were partly related to tissue characteristics, such as the density of PTCs and the degree of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA).

Slide ID Precision Recall Dice Jaccard Recognizability
1 0.867 0.853 0.802 0.670 Good
2 0.814 0.778 0.780 0.612 Good
3 0.884 0.896 0.845 0.732 Good
5 0.905 0.841 0.836 0.710 Good
8 0.783 0.819 0.780 0.640 Good
9 0.816 0.742 0.724 0.567 Good
20* 0.661 0.559 0.616 0.445 Good
11 0.875 0.720 0.751 0.602 Moderate to good
6 0.821 0.787 0.823 0.701 Moderate
7 0.768 0.708 0.672 0.510 Moderate
13 0.812 0.665 0.705 0.688 Moderate
14 0.791 0.731 0.757 0.609 Moderate
16 0.745 0.700 0.722 0.628 Moderate
10 0.812 0.740 0.739 0.603 Moderate to hard
18 0.760 0.787 0.778 0.664 Moderate to hard
4 0.726 0.902 0.701 0.540 Hard
12 0.701 0.612 0.650 0.485 Hard
15 0.610 0.773 0.645 0.476 Hard
17 0.685 0.655 0.600 0.432 Hard
19 0.673 0.684 0.611 0.440 Hard

*Lots of atrophic tubuli (PTC mimickers)

Uses and Directions

This algorithm was developed for research purposes only.

Warnings

Common Error Messages

Information on this algorithm has been provided by the Algorithm Editors, following the Model Facts labels guidelines from Sendak, M.P., Gao, M., Brajer, N. et al. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. npj Digit. Med. 3, 41 (2020). 10.1038/s41746-020-0253-3