Reliable Benchmarking of Artifact Detection in Computational Pathology: A Reproducibility and Uncertainty Analysis

Abstract

Background and Objective: Quality control is a prerequisite for whole-slide image analysis, yet the benchmarks on which quality-control methods are compared share four properties that make their reported differences hard to interpret: few independent slides, annotation concentrated in a minority of them, pooled ratio metrics with no closed-form standard error, and a single inherited train/test partition. We propose a reliability protocol for such benchmarks. Methods: The protocol quantifies four sources of variability - test-set sampling, training stochasticity, partition composition, and undocumented preprocessing - a claim is reportable only if it survives all four; three of the four cost minutes of compute. We apply it to an independent reconstruction of a published diffusion-based artifact detector, evaluated on the original 24-slide partition and against a supervised baseline. Results: The method's central mechanism reproduces: the auxiliary contrastive term improves pooled F1 from 0.673 to 0.688 and replicates under a second seed (+0.0156, p = 0.031; +0.0190, p = 0.005), although it acts on pen marking rather than the artifact types cited to motivate it. Its comparative claims do not: differences between design variants, and against the supervised baseline, fall inside the uncertainty of the evaluation. Four of 24 slides carry 70% of scored annotated pixels, giving an effective sample size of 6.2, and the inherited partition sits at the 7th percentile. An unreported tissue-restriction step excludes 41.4% of out-of-focus annotation against 2.6% of air bubble; such a gate is confounded with blur by construction. Conclusions: Small-cohort benchmarks support far weaker conclusions than current reporting implies. The four checks are cheap enough to accompany any evaluation on such a resource and separate reproducible effects from differences the evaluation cannot resolve.