ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision2013
Stacked Predictive Sparse Coding for Classification of Distinct Regions of Tumor Histopathology.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 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.
- A weakly supervised deep learning-based method for glioma subtype classification using WSI and mpMRIs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Sparse coding of pathology slides compared to transfer learning with deep neural networks.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Unsupervised Transfer Learning via Multi-Scale Convolutional Sparse Coding for Biomedical Applications.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence · 2018Article
- When machine vision meets histology: A comparative evaluation of model architecture for classification of histology sections.Medical image analysis · 2017Article
- Robust Cell Detection of Histopathological Brain Tumor Images Using Sparse Reconstruction and Adaptive Dictionary Selection.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Image-based classification of tissue histology, in terms of distinct histopathology (e.g., tumor or necrosis regions), provides a series of indices for tumor composition. Furthermore, aggregation of these indices from each whole slide image (WSI) in a large cohort can provide predictive models of clinical outcome. However, the performance of the existing techniques is hindered as a result of large technical variations (e.g., fixation, staining) and biological heterogeneities (e.g., cell type, cell state) that are always present in a large cohort. We suggest that, compared with human engineered features widely adopted in existing systems, unsupervised feature learning is more tolerant to batch effect (e.g., technical variations associated with sample preparation) and pertinent features can be learned without user intervention. This leads to a novel approach for classification of tissue histology based on unsupervised feature learning and spatial pyramid matching (SPM), which utilize sparse tissue morphometric signatures at various locations and scales. This approach has been evaluated on two distinct datasets consisting of different tumor types collected from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and the experimental results indicate that the proposed approach is (i) extensible to different tumor types; (ii) robust in the presence of wide technical variations and biological heterogeneities; and (iii) scalable with varying training sample sizes.
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.