Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26110089›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015

Prospector: A web-based tool for rapid acquisition of gold standard data for pathology research and image analysis.

Alexander I Wright, Derek R Magee, Philip Quirke, Darren E Treanor

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Alexander I WrightSection of Pathology, Anatomy and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, UK.
Derek R MageeSchool of Computing, University of Leeds, UK.
Philip QuirkeSection of Pathology, Anatomy and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, UK.
Darren E TreanorSection of Pathology, Anatomy and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, UK ; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01629X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObtaining ground truth for pathological images is essential for various experiments, especially for training and testing image analysis algorithms. However, obtaining pathologist input is often difficult, time consuming and expensive. This leads to algorithms being over-fitted to small datasets, and inappropriate validation, which causes poor performance on real world data. There is a great need to gather data from pathologists in a simple and efficient manner, in order to maximise the amount of data obtained.

methodsWe present a lightweight, web-based HTML5 system for administering and participating in data collection experiments. The system is designed for rapid input with minimal effort, and can be accessed from anywhere in the world with a reliable internet connection.

resultsWe present two case studies that use the system to assess how limitations on fields of view affect pathologist agreement, and to what extent poorly stained slides affect judgement. In both cases, the system collects pathologist scores at a rate of less than two seconds per image.

conclusionsThe system has multiple potential applications in pathology and other domains.

Indexed as

Data acquisitiongold standardground truthtraining dataweb experiment system

Identifiers

PMID26110089
PMCPMC4466790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.