Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16707006›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

The development and validation of the Virtual Tissue Matrix, a software application that facilitates the review of tissue microarrays on line.

Catherine M Conway, Deirdre O'Shea, Sallyann O'Brien, Darragh K Lawler, Graham D Dodrill, Anthony O'Grady, Helen Barrett, Christian Gulmann, Lorraine O'Driscoll, William M Gallagher and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Stanford Tissue Microarray Database.Nucleic acids research · 2008
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine M ConwayMedical Informatics Group, School of Biotechnology, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. catherine.conway3@mail.dcu.ie
Deirdre O'Shea
Sallyann O'Brien
Darragh K Lawler
Graham D Dodrill
Anthony O'Grady
Helen Barrett
Christian Gulmann
Lorraine O'Driscoll
William M Gallagher
Elaine W Kay
Daniel G O'Shea
Dublin City University · IEBeaumont Hospital · IEUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Tissue Microarray (TMA) facilitates high-throughput analysis of hundreds of tissue specimens simultaneously. However, bottlenecks in the storage and manipulation of the data generated from TMA reviews have become apparent. A number of software applications have been developed to assist in image and data management; however no solution currently facilitates the easy online review, scoring and subsequent storage of images and data associated with TMA experimentation.

resultsThis paper describes the design, development and validation of the Virtual Tissue Matrix (VTM). Through an intuitive HTML driven user interface, the VTM provides digital/virtual slide based images of each TMA core and a means to record observations on each TMA spot. Data generated from a TMA review is stored in an associated relational database, which facilitates the use of flexible scoring forms. The system allows multiple users to record their interpretation of each TMA spot for any parameters assessed. Images generated for the VTM were captured using a standard background lighting intensity and corrective algorithms were applied to each image to eliminate any background lighting hue inconsistencies or vignetting. Validation of the VTM involved examination of inter-and intra-observer variability between microscope and digital TMA reviews. Six bladder TMAs were immunohistochemically stained for E-Cadherin, beta-Catenin and PhosphoMet and were assessed by two reviewers for the amount of core and tumour present, the amount and intensity of membrane, cytoplasmic and nuclear staining.

conclusionResults show that digital VTM images are representative of the original tissue viewed with a microscope. There were equivalent levels of inter-and intra-observer agreement for five out of the eight parameters assessed. Results also suggest that digital reviews may correct potential problems experienced when reviewing TMAs using a microscope, for example, removal of background lighting variance and tint, and potential disorientation of the reviewer, which may have resulted in the discrepancies evident in the remaining three parameters.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwareSoftware ValidationEquipment Failure AnalysisImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedOnline SystemsQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySoftware DesignTissue Array AnalysisUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID16707006
PMCPMC1479843
OpenAlexW1908614788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.