Artificial intelligence-powered renal pathology for glomerular disease classification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors

Min Tong, Yingying Jiang, Rongxin Zhu, Zichao Ding, Diya Ma, Jingdan Yin, Yatong Zhang, Zhenhua Yuan, Xianqing Ren

Published in

Renal failure. Volume 48. Issue 1. Pages 2729643. Epub Oct 06, 2026.

Abstract

Diagnostic performance varies across glomerular disease (GD) subtypes, and whether artificial intelligence (AI) outperforms pathologists with different experience levels remains uncertain.
To evaluate pathology-based AI models for GD classification and compare their performance with pathologists.
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through 15 July 2026. Studies using pathology images and pathology diagnosis as the reference standard were included. Random-effects models pooled sensitivity, precision, accuracy, F1 score and area under the curve (AUC).
Fifteen studies comprising 39,536 validation sample units, not necessarily unique patients, were included. For subtypes with at least 10 validation datasets, AI achieved high performance for membranous nephropathy (MN; sensitivity 0.96, precision 0.94, accuracy 0.96, F1 score 0.95, AUC 0.98), IgA nephropathy (IgAN; sensitivity 0.92, precision 0.91, accuracy 0.94, F1 score 0.90, AUC 0.96), and minimal change disease (MCD; sensitivity 0.92, precision 0.87, accuracy 0.96, F1 score 0.89, AUC 1.00). AI also showed higher accuracy than senior pathologists for IgAN, MN, and MCD; however, comparator evidence was sparse and should be interpreted cautiously. Most included studies were retrospective, and substantial heterogeneity was observed across datasets, imaging modalities, model architectures, and validation strategies.
Pathology-based AI shows strong potential for GD classification, but current head-to-head evidence is insufficient to establish superiority over pathologists, particularly senior pathologists. Prospective multicenter studies integrating multimodal clinical data and standardized external validation are needed.

PMID:
42838512
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 07 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.