IP Library Granted Patent US 12,657,721
Granted Patent B2
US 12,657,721 · App. 18/514,504 · Granted Jun 16, 2026

Systems and methods for analyzing electronic images for quality control

Inventors: Jillian Sue (New York, NY); Razik Yousfi (Brooklyn, NY); Peter Schueffler (Munich, DE); Thomas Fuchs (New York, NY); Leo Grady (Darien, CT)
Assignee: Paige.AI, Inc.
G06T7/0014G16H30/40G16H50/20G16H70/60G06T2207/10056G06T2207/20081G06T2207/30024G06T2207/30168
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,657,721
App. No.
18/514,504
Granted
Jun 16, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Systems and methods are disclosed for receiving a digital image corresponding to a target specimen associated with a pathology category, determining a quality control (QC) machine learning model to predict a quality designation based on one or more artifacts, providing the digital image as an input to the QC machine learning model, receiving the quality designation for the digital image as an output from the machine learning model, and outputting the quality designation of the digital image. A quality assurance (QA) machine learning model may predict a disease designation based on one or more biomarkers. The digital image may be provided to the QA model which may output a disease designation. An external designation may be compared to the disease designation and a comparison result may be output.

Claims (50)

1 . A computer-implemented method for quality control of at least one digital image of a sample mounted on a slide, comprising:

accessing the at least one digital image that depicts the sample mounted on the slide, wherein the at least one digital image was captured using at least one imaging device of a slide imaging apparatus;

determining, using a first quality control machine learning model, a quality score of the at least one digital image and a quality score classification by determining one or more artifacts of sub-regions of at least one region of interest of the at least one digital image by:

applying, using the first quality control machine learning model, at least one digital image filter, scanning technique, or pixel comparison technique to the at least one region of interest to detect the one or more artifacts, and

comparing, using the first quality control machine learning model, a number and/or extent of the one or more artifacts within the at least one region of interest to a threshold value of artifacts, the one or more artifacts comprising a blur, missing tissue, line, folded tissue, bubbles, cracks in glass, scratches, dust, and/or pen marking of the at least one digital image, wherein the quality score classification of the at least one region of interest is determined depending on the comparison; and

generating, using a second quality control machine learning model, at least one quality designation based on the quality score classification of the quality score and the one or more artifacts, wherein:

the at least one quality designation is either an approved designation or a rejected designation, and

the second quality control machine learning model having been trained to predict the at least one quality designation based on a plurality of digital images, a plurality of quality scores, a plurality of quality score classifications, an approval scale, and a rejection scale.

2 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

outputting a visual output of the at least one quality designation.

3 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the visual output is a visual indicator, and the visual indicator highlights a given artifact of the at least one digital image.

4 . The method of claim 3 , wherein the visual output is an overlay that highlights a location of the artifacts on the at least one digital image.

5 . The method of claim 3 , wherein the visual output is an overlay that highlights a degree of a presence of the artifacts.

6 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the artifacts include scanning results and/or errors of the at least one digital image.

7 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one region of interest is the at least one digital image or a section of the at least one digital image.

8 . The method of claim 1 , wherein one or both of the first quality control machine learning model or the second quality control machine learning model is based on a convolutional neural network.

9 . A system comprising:

a memory storing instructions; and

a processor executing the instructions to perform operations comprising:

accessing at least one digital image that depicts a sample mounted on a slide, wherein the at least one digital image was captured using at least one imaging device of a slide imaging apparatus;

inputting the at least one digital image into a quality control machine learning model;

automatically determining, using the quality control machine learning model, a quality score of the at least one digital image and a quality score classification by determining one or more artifacts of sub-regions of at least one region of interest of the at least one digital image by:

applying, using the quality control machine learning model, at least one digital image filter, scanning technique, or pixel comparison technique to the at least one region of interest to detect the one or more artifacts, and

comparing, using the quality control machine learning model, a number and/or extent of the one or more artifacts within the at least one region of interest to a threshold value of artifacts, the one or more artifacts comprises a blur, missing tissue, line, folded tissue, bubbles, cracks in glass, scratches, dust, and/or pen marking of the at least one digital image, wherein the quality score classification of the at least one region of interest is determined depending on the comparison; and

automatically generating, using the quality control machine learning model, at least one quality designation based on the quality score classification of the quality score and the one or more artifacts, wherein:

the at least one quality designation is either an approved designation or a rejected designation, and

the quality control machine learning model has been trained to predict the at least one quality designation based on a plurality of digital images, a plurality of quality scores, a plurality of quality score classifications, an approval scale, and a rejection scale.

10 . The system of claim 9 , further comprising the at least one imaging device.

11 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the slide imaging apparatus includes least one controlling and evaluation device.

12 . The system of claim 9 , further comprising outputting a visual output of the at least one quality designation.

13 . The system of claim 12 , wherein the visual output is a visual indicator, and the visual indicator highlights a given artifact of the at least one digital image.

14 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the visual output is an overlay that highlights a location of the artifacts on the at least one digital image.

15 . The system of claim 12 , wherein the visual output is an overlay that highlights a degree of a presence of the artifacts.

16 . The system of claim 9 , wherein the artifacts include scanning results or errors of the at least one digital image.

17 . A computer-program product tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions configured to cause one or more data processors to perform a set of operations comprising:

accessing at least one digital image that depicts a sample mounted on a slide, wherein the at least one digital image was captured using at least one imaging device of a slide imaging apparatus;

inputting the at least one digital image into a first quality control machine learning model;

automatically determining, using the first quality control machine learning model, a quality score of the at least one digital image and a quality score classification by determining one or more artifacts of sub-regions of at least one region of interest of the at least one digital image by:

applying, using the first quality control machine learning model, at least one digital image filter, scanning technique, or pixel comparison technique to the at least one region of interest to detect the one or more artifacts, and

comparing, using the first quality control machine learning model, a number and/or extent of the one or more artifacts within the at least one region of interest to a threshold value of artifacts, the one or more artifacts comprises a blur, missing tissue, line, folded tissue, bubbles, cracks in glass, scratches, dust, and/or pen marking of the at least one digital image, wherein the quality score classification of the at least one region of interest is determined depending on the comparison; and

automatically generating, using a second quality control machine learning model, at least one quality designation based on the quality score classification of the quality score and the one or more artifacts, wherein:

the at least one quality designation is either an approved designation or a rejected designation,

the at least one quality designation is indicative of artifacts in the at least one digital image, and

the second quality control machine learning model has been trained to predict the at least one quality designation based on a plurality of digital images, a plurality of quality scores, a plurality of quality score classifications, an approval scale, and a rejection scale that is indicative of an image quality.

18 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining a report based on the at least one quality designation, the report including types of artifacts found, number of each type of artifact, clinical impact of artifacts, time to rectify artifact, and/or potential patterns or correlations in artifacts.

19 . The system of claim 9 , further comprising:

determining a report based on the at least one quality designation, the report including types of artifacts found, number of each type of artifact, clinical impact of artifacts, time to rectify artifact, and/or potential patterns or correlations in artifacts.

20 . The computer-program product of claim 17 , further comprising:

determining a report based on the at least one quality designation, the report including types of artifacts found, number of each type of artifact, clinical impact of artifacts, time to rectify artifact, and/or potential patterns or correlations in artifacts.

Assignments (3)
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded May 14, 2026
From: ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
To: PAIGE.AI, INC.
Reel/Frame 075589/0752 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Oct 21, 2025
From: PAIGE.AI, INC.
To: ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 073216/0876 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Dec 7, 2023
From: SUE, JILLIAN; YOUSFI, RAZIK; SCHUEFFLER, PETER; FUCHS, THOMAS; GRADY, LEO
To: PAIGE.AI, INC.
Reel/Frame 065793/0518 →
Continuity (5)
Continuation 18174284 · Feb 24, 2023
Continuation 17457268 · Dec 2, 2021
Continuation 17126596 · Dec 18, 2020
Provisional Application 62957517 · Jan 6, 2020
Related Publication 20240087124A1 · Mar 14, 2024
References Cited (20)
US 10573003B2 · Sethi et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20160042511A1 · Chukka et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20190340468A1 · Stumpe et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200126207A1 · Saltz et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200272864A1 · Faust et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200273559A1 · Yousfi et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200285890A1 · Fuchs · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200365268A1 · Michuda et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200405225A1 · Kennedy et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210090694A1 · Colley et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CA 3034900A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
CN 109771842A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
JP 2006507875A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
JP 2018013826A · 2018 [cited by applicant]
JP 2019533805A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
KR 20190068607A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018209057A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019235335A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
Campanella, Gabriele, et al. “Towards machine learned quality control: A benchmark for sharpness quantification in digital pathology.” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 65 (2018): 142-151. [cited by applicant]
Owens, Scott R., et al. “Initial experience with a novel pre-sign-out quality assurance tool for review of random surgical pathology diagnoses in a subspecialty-based university practice.” The American journal of surgic… [cited by applicant]