ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2015
Assessment of tumour viability in human lung cancer xenografts with texture-based image analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- An effective study on the diagnosis of colon cancer with the developed local binary pattern method.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multimodal integration strategies for clinical application in oncology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Outcome and Biomarker Supervised Deep Learning for Survival Prediction in Two Multicenter Breast Cancer Series.Journal of pathology informatics · 2022Article
- Clustering approach to identify intratumour heterogeneity combining FDG PET and diffusion-weighted MRI in lung adenocarcinoma.European radiology · 2019Article
- Accurate Morphology Preserving Segmentation of Overlapping Cells based on Active Contours.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Multi-class texture analysis in colorectal cancer histology.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Antibody-supervised deep learning for quantification of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in hematoxylin and eosin stained breast cancer samples.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo build and evaluate an automated method for assessing tumour viability in histological tissue samples using texture features and supervised learning.
methodsH&E-stained sections (n=56) of human non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma xenografts were digitised with a whole-slide scanner. A novel image analysis method based on local binary patterns and a support vector machine classifier was trained with a set of sample regions (n=177) extracted from the whole-slide images and tested with another set of images (n=494). The extracted regions, or single-tissue entity images, were chosen to represent as pure as possible examples of three morphological tissue entities: viable tumour tissue, non-viable tumour tissue and mouse host tissue.
resultsAn agreement of 94.5% (area under the curve=0.995, kappa=0.90) was achieved to classify the single-tissue entity images in the test set (n=494) into the viable tumour and non-viable tumour tissue categories. The algorithm assigned 250 of the 252 non-viable and 219 of the 242 of viable sample regions to the correct categories, respectively. This corresponds to a sensitivity of 90.5% and specificity of 99.2%.
conclusionsThe proposed image analysis-based tumour viability assessment resulted in a high agreement with expert annotations. By providing extraction of detailed information of the tumour microenvironment, the automated method can be used in preclinical research settings. The method could also have implications in cancer diagnostics, cancer outcome prognostics and prediction.
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.