Digital pathology in tau research: A comparison of QuPath and HALO.

The application of digital pathology tools has expanded in recent years, but non-neoplastic human brain tissue presents unique challenges due to its complexity. This study evaluated HALO and QuPath tau quantification performance in the hippocampus and mid-frontal gyrus across various tauopathies. Percent positivity emerged as the most reliable measure, showing strong correlations with Braak stages and CERAD scores, outperforming object and optical densities. QuPath demonstrated superior correlations with Braak stages, while HALO excelled in aligning with CERAD scoring. However, HALO's optical density was less consistent. Paired t-tests revealed significant differences in object and optical densities between platforms, though percent positivity was consistent across both. QuPath's threshold-based object density showed similar agreement with manual counts compared to HALO's AI-dependent approach (all ρ > 0.70). Reanalysis of QuPath further improved its agreement with manual measurements and correlations with Braak and CERAD scores (all ρ > 0.70). HALO offers a user-friendly interface and excels in certain metrics but is hindered by frequent software malfunctions and more limited flexibility. In contrast, QuPath's customizable workflows and superior performance in Braak staging make it more suitable for advanced and larger-scale analyses. Overall, our study highlights the strengths and limitations of these platforms, helping guide their application in neuropathology.