ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2014
Evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology: a platform for validation studies.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial interactions with the FDA on developing a validation dataset as a medical device development tool.The Journal of pathology · 2023Article
- Pilot study to evaluate tools to collect pathologist annotations for validating machine learning algorithms.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
- Article
- A Pathologist-Annotated Dataset for Validating Artificial Intelligence: A Project Description and Pilot Study.Journal of pathology informatics · 2021Article
- Quantitative pixel intensity- and color-based image analysis on minimally compressed files: implications for whole-slide imaging.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2019Article
- Validation of mitotic cell quantification via microscopy and multiple whole-slide scanners.Diagnostic pathology · 2019Article
- Influence of study design on digital pathology image quality evaluation: the need to define a clinical task.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
- Axon and Myelin Morphology in Animal and Human Spinal Cord.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2017Review
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
We present a platform for designing and executing studies that compare pathologists interpreting histopathology of whole slide images (WSIs) on a computer display to pathologists interpreting glass slides on an optical microscope. eeDAP is an evaluation environment for digital and analog pathology. The key element in eeDAP is the registration of the WSI to the glass slide. Registration is accomplished through computer control of the microscope stage and a camera mounted on the microscope that acquires real-time images of the microscope field of view (FOV). Registration allows for the evaluation of the same regions of interest (ROIs) in both domains. This can reduce or eliminate disagreements that arise from pathologists interpreting different areas and focuses on the comparison of image quality. We reduced the pathologist interpretation area from an entire glass slide (10 to [Formula: see text]) to small ROIs ([Formula: see text]). We also made possible the evaluation of individual cells. We summarize eeDAP's software and hardware and provide calculations and corresponding images of the microscope FOV and the ROIs extracted from the WSIs. The eeDAP software can be downloaded from the Google code website (project: eeDAP) as a MATLAB source or as a precompiled stand-alone license-free application.
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.