A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Staining normalization in histopathology: Method benchmarking using multicenter dataset
Authors: Khan, Umair; Härkönen, Jouni; Friman, Marjukka; Hakimnejad, Hesam; Latonen, Leena; Kuopio, Teijo; Ruusuvuori, Pekka
Publication year: 2026
Journal: Scientific Reports
Article number: 11097
Volume: 16
Issue: 1
eISSN: 2045-2322
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40943-3
Publication's open availability at the time of reporting: Open Access
Publication channel's open availability : Open Access publication channel
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40943-3
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/515761745
Self-archived copy's licence: CC BY
Self-archived copy's version: Publisher`s PDF
Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) has been the gold standard in tissue analysis for decades, however, tissue specimens stained in different laboratories vary, often significantly, in appearance. This variation poses a challenge for both pathologists’ and AI-based downstream analysis. Minimizing stain variation computationally is an active area of research. To further investigate this problem, we collected a unique multi-center tissue image dataset, wherein tissue samples from colon, kidney, and skin tissue blocks were distributed to 66 different labs for routine H&E staining. To isolate staining variation, other factors affecting the tissue appearance were kept constant. Further, we used this tissue image dataset to compare the performance of eight different stain normalization methods, including four traditional methods, namely, histogram matching, Macenko, Vahadane, and Reinhard normalization, and two deep learning-based methods namely CycleGAN and Pixp2pix, both with two variants each. We used both quantitative and qualitative evaluation to assess the performance of these methods. The dataset’s inter-laboratory staining variation could also guide strategies to improve model generalizability through varied training data.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |
Funding information in the publication:
Financial support from Research Council of Finland (PR, LL), Cancer Foundation Finland (PR, LL), Sigrid Juselius Foundation (PR), University of Turku Graduate School (UK) is gratefully acknowledged.