ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2013
Quantifying local heterogeneity via morphologic scale: Distinguishing tumoral from stromal regions.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An alternative reference space for H&E color normalization.PloS one · 2017Article
- A method for comparing intra-tumoural radioactivity uptake heterogeneity in preclinical positron emission tomography studies.EJNMMI physics · 2015Article
- Beyond immune density: critical role of spatial heterogeneity in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2015Article
- Mapping spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment: a new era for digital pathology.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2015Review
- Novel genotype-phenotype associations in human cancers enabled by advanced molecular platforms and computational analysis of whole slide images.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe notion of local scale was introduced to characterize varying levels of image detail so that localized image processing tasks could be performed while simultaneously yielding a globally optimal result. In this paper, we have presented the methodological framework for a novel locally adaptive scale definition, morphologic scale (MS), which is different from extant local scale definitions in that it attempts to characterize local heterogeneity as opposed to local homogeneity.
methodsAt every point of interest, the MS is determined as a series of radial paths extending outward in the direction of least resistance, navigating around obstructions. Each pixel can then be directly compared to other points of interest via a rotationally invariant quantitative feature descriptor, determined by the application of Fourier descriptors to the collection of these paths.
resultsOUR GOAL IS TO DISTINGUISH TUMOR AND STROMAL TISSUE CLASSES IN THE CONTEXT OF FOUR DIFFERENT DIGITIZED PATHOLOGY DATASETS: prostate tissue microarrays (TMAs) stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) (44 images) and TMAs stained with only hematoxylin (H) (44 images), slide mounts of ovarian H (60 images), and HE breast cancer (51 images) histology images. Classification performance over 50 cross-validation runs using a Bayesian classifier produced mean areas under the curve of 0.88 ± 0.01 (prostate HE), 0.87 ± 0.02 (prostate H), 0.88 ± 0.01 (ovarian H), and 0.80 ± 0.01 (breast HE).
conclusionFor each dataset listed in Table 3, we randomly selected 100 points per image, and using the procedure described in Experiment 1, we attempted to separate them as belonging to stroma or epithelium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.