Direct Measurement and AI-based Inference Reveal Histological Section Thickness as a Variable Physical Property Accessible from Routine H&E Images
- Journal
- Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology (Q1)
- Published
- 17 September 2026
- Study design
- Unclassified
- Evidence level
- Level 5, Expert Opinion (CEBM 5)
- Authors
- Masayoshi Fujisawa, Toshiaki Ohara, Yuto Shimada, Koichi Takeuchi, Takao Shimayoshi, Tomoyasu Sugiyama, et al.
- PMID
- 42754168
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.labinv.2026.106166
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Histology (paper of the day, 19 September 2026): AI inference of histological section thickness variability
Abstract
PURPOSE: Variability in routine hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images is an emerging concern in diagnostic and computational pathology. Although staining variability has been extensively studied, histological section thickness remains a largely unmeasured physical property that may influence image appearance. We investigated how section thickness varies within and between histological sections and whether it can be inferred from H&E images using artificial intelligence (AI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We integrated high-resolution confocal surface profiling with matched H&E imaging. At 154 measurement sites, section thickness was compared with microtome preset values and between the paraffin-embedded and deparaffinized states. AI models were developed using 357 matched image-measurement pairs and evaluated in an independent test set of 56 images. RESULTS: Paraffin-embedded section thickness frequently deviated from microtome preset values, with more than two-thirds of measurements falling outside ±10% of the nominal setting. After deparaffinization, section thickness decreased to approximately one-third of the paraffin-embedded thickness. Spatial thickness maps further revealed tissue component-dependent thickness reduction, including in collagen, mucin, erythrocyte-rich areas, and nuclear structures, contributing to marked spatial heterogeneity in deparaffinized section thickness. Among the convolutional neural network-based regression models, the best-performing ResNet50 achieved a coefficient of determination of 0.86 and a mean absolute error of 0.28 μm in the independent test set. A generative adversarial network further recapitulated spatial patterns of thickness variation from H&E images. Digital color-perturbation analyses showed that staining-related image variation can influence thickness estimation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that histological section thickness is not merely a microtome setting but a variable, tissue-dependent, and AI-inferable physical property of routine H&E sections. Section thickness may therefore represent an underrecognized preanalytical source of image variation and a potential target for AI-assisted, thickness-aware quality control in digital pathology.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.