<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Aung TN</submitter><funding>NCI NIH HHS</funding><pagination>e2518906</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12232186</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>8(7)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Importance&lt;/h4>Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a provocative biomarker in melanoma, influencing diagnosis, prognosis, and immunotherapy outcomes; however, traditional pathologist-read TIL assessment on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides is prone to interobserver variability, leading to inconsistent clinical decisions. Therefore, development of newer TIL scoring approaches that produce more reliable and consistent readouts is important.&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>To evaluate the analytical and clinical validity of a machine learning algorithm for TIL quantification in melanoma compared with traditional pathologist-read methods.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and participants&lt;/h4>This multioperator, global, multi-institutional prognostic study compared TIL scoring reproducibility between traditio</pubmed_abstract><journal>JAMA network open</journal><pubmed_title>Pathologist-Read vs AI-Driven Assessment of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Melanoma.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12232186</pmcid><funding_grant_id>P50 CA121974</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>P50 CA225450</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U54 CA263001</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>P50 CA196530</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>P30 CA016359</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Su D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tan SX</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Osman I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gama J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vesely MD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Fortarezza F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rau T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rimm DL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tsiknakis N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Acs B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bracero Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Oliveira RC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilmott J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tzoras E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gonzalez MS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Plummer J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Dema A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Brautigam K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wong PF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Queipo Gutierrez FJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Solass W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jovic V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pezzuto F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nourmohammadi S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bosic M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>He M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cowper S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sun W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gullo I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gavirelatou N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sinnberg T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Szymonski K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Saenger Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Aung TN</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kreis B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pinto J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pop O</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vigdorovits A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vignati D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bates K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Poulios C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Warrell J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Barna R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Skok K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Neppl C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vidal JM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Illabochaca I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Toli MA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pillar N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Plotar V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Micevic G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lazar B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Burela S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Boyaci C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Maher N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Serbes ED</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Stanowska O</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Thimm F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Shafi S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hacihasanoglu E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Olinca M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bai Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Szasz M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cserni G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Djureinovic D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Steen S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chenhao Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gomes Pinto D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Prieto V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chan NNN</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bosisio F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mohacsi R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hartman J</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Pathologist-Read vs AI-Driven Assessment of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Melanoma.</name><description>&lt;h4>Importance&lt;/h4>Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a provocative biomarker in melanoma, influencing diagnosis, prognosis, and immunotherapy outcomes; however, traditional pathologist-read TIL assessment on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides is prone to interobserver variability, leading to inconsistent clinical decisions. Therefore, development of newer TIL scoring approaches that produce more reliable and consistent readouts is important.&lt;h4>Objective&lt;/h4>To evaluate the analytical and clinical validity of a machine learning algorithm for TIL quantification in melanoma compared with traditional pathologist-read methods.&lt;h4>Design, setting, and participants&lt;/h4>This multioperator, global, multi-institutional prognostic study compared TIL scoring reproducibility between traditio</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Jul</publication><modification>2026-06-06T17:23:56.809Z</modification><creation>2026-06-03T03:10:16.585Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12232186</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40608341</pubmed><doi>10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.18906</doi></cross_references></HashMap>