@inproceedings{RosbachAmmelingKruegeletal.2025, author = {Rosbach, Emely and Ammeling, Jonas and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Puget, Chlo{\´e} and Donovan, Taryn and Klang, Andrea and K{\"o}ller, Maximilian C. and Bolfa, Pompei and Tecilla, Marco and Denk, Daniela and Kiupel, Matti and Paraschou, Georgios and Kok, Mun Keong and Haake, Alexander F. H. and de Krijger, Ronald R. and Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. and Kasantikul, Tanit and Dorrestein, Gerry M. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Stathonikos, Nikolas and Uhl, Matthias and Bertram, Christof and Riener, Andreas and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {"When Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology}, pages = {528}, booktitle = {CHI'25: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems}, editor = {Yamashita, Naomi and Evers, Vanessa and Yatani, Koji and Ding, Xianghua and Lee, Bongshin and Chetty, Marshini and Toups-Dugas, Phoebe}, publisher = {ACM}, address = {New York}, isbn = {979-8-4007-1394-1}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713319}, year = {2025}, abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support systems hold promise for enhancing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in computational pathology. However, human-AI collaboration can introduce and amplify cognitive biases, like confirmation bias caused by false confirmation when erroneous human opinions are reinforced by inaccurate AI output. This bias may increase under time pressure, a ubiquitous factor in routine pathology, as it strains practitioners' cognitive resources. We quantified confirmation bias triggered by AI-induced false confirmation and examined the role of time constraints in a web-based experiment, where trained pathology experts (n=28) estimated tumor cell percentages. Our results suggest that AI integration fuels confirmation bias, evidenced by a statistically significant positive linear-mixed-effects model coefficient linking AI recommendations mirroring flawed human judgment and alignment with system advice. Conversely, time pressure appeared to weaken this relationship. These findings highlight potential risks of AI in healthcare and aim to support the safe integration of clinical decision support systems.}, language = {en} } @unpublished{RosbachAmmelingKruegeletal.2024, author = {Rosbach, Emely and Ammeling, Jonas and Kr{\"u}gel, Sebastian and Kießig, Angelika and Fritz, Alexis and Ganz, Jonathan and Puget, Chlo{\´e} and Donovan, Taryn and Klang, Andrea and K{\"o}ller, Maximilian C. and Bolfa, Pompei and Tecilla, Marco and Denk, Daniela and Kiupel, Matti and Paraschou, Georgios and Kok, Mun Keong and Haake, Alexander F. H. and de Krijger, Ronald R. and Sonnen, Andreas F.-P. and Kasantikul, Tanit and Dorrestein, Gerry M. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Stathonikos, Nikolas and Uhl, Matthias and Bertram, Christof and Riener, Andreas and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {"When TwoWrongs Don't Make a Right" - Examining Confirmation Bias and the Role of Time Pressure During Human-AI Collaboration in Computational Pathology}, publisher = {arXiv}, address = {Ithaca}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.01007}, year = {2024}, language = {en} } @article{BertramAubrevilleGurtneretal.2020, author = {Bertram, Christof and Aubreville, Marc and Gurtner, Corinne and Bartel, Alexander and Corner, Sarah M. and Dettwiler, Martina and Kershaw, Olivia and Noland, Erica L. and Schmidt, Anja and Sledge, Dodd G. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Thaiwong, Tuddow and Kiupel, Matti and Maier, Andreas and Klopfleisch, Robert}, title = {Computerized Calculation of Mitotic Count Distribution in Canine Cutaneous Mast Cell Tumor Sections: Mitotic Count Is Area Dependent}, volume = {57}, journal = {Veterinary Pathology}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {1544-2217}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985819890686}, pages = {214 -- 226}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{BertramAubrevilleDonovanetal.2021, author = {Bertram, Christof and Aubreville, Marc and Donovan, Taryn and Bartel, Alexander and Wilm, Frauke and Marzahl, Christian and Assenmacher, Charles-Antoine and Becker, Kathrin and Bennett, Mark and Corner, Sarah M. and Cossic, Brieuc and Denk, Daniela and Dettwiler, Martina and Garcia Gonzalez, Beatriz and Gurtner, Corinne and Haverkamp, Ann-Kathrin and Heier, Annabelle and Lehmbecker, Annika and Merz, Sophie and Noland, Erica L. and Plog, Stephanie and Schmidt, Anja and Sebastian, Franziska and Sledge, Dodd G. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Tecilla, Marco and Thaiwong, Tuddow and Fuchs-Baumgartinger, Andrea and Meuten, Donald J. and Breininger, Katharina and Kiupel, Matti and Maier, Andreas and Klopfleisch, Robert}, title = {Computer-assisted mitotic count using a deep learning-based algorithm improves interobserver reproducibility and accuracy}, volume = {59}, journal = {Veterinary Pathology}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {1544-2217}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03009858211067478}, pages = {211 -- 226}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The mitotic count (MC) is an important histological parameter for prognostication of malignant neoplasms. However, it has inter- and intraobserver discrepancies due to difficulties in selecting the region of interest (MC-ROI) and in identifying or classifying mitotic figures (MFs). Recent progress in the field of artificial intelligence has allowed the development of high-performance algorithms that may improve standardization of the MC. As algorithmic predictions are not flawless, computer-assisted review by pathologists may ensure reliability. In the present study, we compared partial (MC-ROI preselection) and full (additional visualization of MF candidates and display of algorithmic confidence values) computer-assisted MC analysis to the routine (unaided) MC analysis by 23 pathologists for whole-slide images of 50 canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCTs). Algorithmic predictions aimed to assist pathologists in detecting mitotic hotspot locations, reducing omission of MFs, and improving classification against imposters. The interobserver consistency for the MC significantly increased with computer assistance (interobserver correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.92) compared to the unaided approach (ICC = 0.70). Classification into prognostic stratifications had a higher accuracy with computer assistance. The algorithmically preselected hotspot MC-ROIs had a consistently higher MCs than the manually selected MC-ROIs. Compared to a ground truth (developed with immunohistochemistry for phosphohistone H3), pathologist performance in detecting individual MF was augmented when using computer assistance (F1-score of 0.68 increased to 0.79) with a reduction in false negatives by 38\%. The results of this study demonstrate that computer assistance may lead to more reproducible and accurate MCs in ccMCTs.}, language = {en} } @article{BertramAubrevilleGurtneretal.2020, author = {Bertram, Christof and Aubreville, Marc and Gurtner, Corinne and Bartel, Alexander and Corner, Sarah M. and Dettwiler, Martina and Kershaw, Olivia and Noland, Erica L. and Schmidt, Anja and Sledge, Dodd G. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Thaiwong, Tuddow and Kiupel, Matti and Maier, Andreas and Klopfleisch, Robert}, title = {Mitotic count in canine cutaneous mast cell tumours}, volume = {2020}, journal = {Journal of Comparative Pathology}, subtitle = {not accurate but reproducible}, number = {174}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {London}, issn = {1532-3129}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2019.10.015}, pages = {143}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{MeutenMooreDonovanetal.2021, author = {Meuten, Donald J. and Moore, Frances M. and Donovan, Taryn and Bertram, Christof and Klopfleisch, Robert and Foster, Robert A. and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Dark, Michael and Milovancev, Milan and Stromberg, Paul and Williams, Bruce H. and Aubreville, Marc and Avallone, Giancarlo and Bolfa, Pompei and Cullen, John and Dennis, Michelle M. and Goldschmidt, Michael and Luong, Richard and Miller, Andrew D. and Miller, Margaret A. and Munday, John S. and Roccabianca, Paola and Salas, Elisa N. and Schulman, F. Yvonne and Laufer-Amorim, Renee and Asakawa, Midori G. and Craig, Linden and Dervisis, Nick and Esplin, D. Glen and George, Jeanne W. and Hauck, Marlene and Kagawa, Yumiko and Kiupel, Matti and Linder, Keith and Meichner, Kristina and Marconato, Laura and Oblak, Michelle L. and Santos, Renato L. and Simpson, R. Mark and Tvedten, Harold and Whitley, Derick}, title = {International Guidelines for Veterinary Tumor Pathology: A Call to Action}, volume = {58}, journal = {Veterinary Pathology}, number = {5}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {1544-2217}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/03009858211013712}, pages = {766 -- 794}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{WilmBertramMarzahletal.2021, author = {Wilm, Frauke and Bertram, Christof and Marzahl, Christian and Bartel, Alexander and Donovan, Taryn and Assenmacher, Charles-Antoine and Becker, Kathrin and Bennett, Mark and Corner, Sarah M. and Cossic, Brieuc and Denk, Daniela and Dettwiler, Martina and Garcia Gonzalez, Beatriz and Gurtner, Corinne and Heier, Annabelle and Lehmbecker, Annika and Merz, Sophie and Plog, Stephanie and Schmidt, Anja and Sebastian, Franziska and Smedley, Rebecca C. and Tecilla, Marco and Thaiwong, Tuddow and Breininger, Katharina and Kiupel, Matti and Maier, Andreas and Klopfleisch, Robert and Aubreville, Marc}, title = {Influence of inter-annotator variability on automatic mitotic figure assessment}, booktitle = {Bildverarbeitung f{\"u}r die Medizin 2021}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Wiesbaden}, isbn = {978-3-658-33198-6}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33198-6_56}, pages = {241 -- 246}, year = {2021}, language = {en} }