Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25763314›Full record

ArticleAnalytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam)2014

Observer performance in the use of digital and optical microscopy for the interpretation of tissue-based biomarkers.

Marios A Gavrielides, Catherine Conway, Neil O'Flaherty, Brandon D Gallas, Stephen M Hewitt

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2016
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marios A GavrielidesDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Catherine ConwayLaboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA ; Leica Biosystems, Vista, CA 92081, USA.
Neil O'FlahertyDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Brandon D GallasDivision of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993, USA.
Stephen M HewittLaboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health · USCenter for Cancer Research · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Experimental Pathology Laboratory (EPL)ZICBC011638 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI HEWITT, STEPHEN · 2015 to 2025
$16.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted a validation study of digital pathology for the quantitative assessment of tissue-based biomarkers with immunohistochemistry.

objectiveTo examine observer agreement as a function of viewing modality (digital versus optical microscopy), whole slide versus tissue microarray (TMA) review, biomarker type (HER2 incorporating membranous staining and Ki-67 with nuclear staining), and data type (continuous and categorical).

methodsEight pathologists reviewed 50 breast cancer whole slides (25 stained with HER2 and 25 with Ki-67) and 2 TMAs (1 stained with HER2, 1 with Ki-67, each containing 97 cores), using digital and optical microscopy.

resultsResults showed relatively high overall interobserver and intermodality agreement, with different patterns specific to biomarker type. For HER2, there was better interobserver agreement for optical compared to digital microscopy for whole slides as well as better interobserver and intermodality agreement for TMAs. For Ki-67, those patterns were not observed.

conclusionsThe differences in agreement patterns when examining different biomarkers and different scoring methods and reviewing whole slides compared to TMA stress the need for validation studies focused on specific pathology tasks to eliminate sources of variability that might dilute findings. The statistical uncertainty observed in our analyses calls for adequate sampling for each individual task rather than pooling cases.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryMicroscopyObserver VariationPathology, ClinicalTissue Array AnalysisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID25763314
PMCPMC4333912
OpenAlexW2008365559

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.