Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26796117›Full record

ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2016

Probabilistic Segmentation of Mass Spectrometry (MS) Images Helps Select Important Ions and Characterize Confidence in the Resulting Segments.

Kyle D Bemis, April Harry, Livia S Eberlin, Christina R Ferreira, Stephanie M van de Ven, Parag Mallick, Mark Stolowitz, Olga Vitek

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Application of a Random Forest Classifier to ToF-SIMS Imaging Data.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle D BemisFrom the ‡Department of Statistics and.
April HarryFrom the ‡Department of Statistics and.
Livia S Eberlin§Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
Christina R Ferreira§Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
Stephanie M van de Ven¶Canary Center at Canary Foundation, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304; College of Science and.
Parag Mallick¶Canary Center at Canary Foundation, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304; College of Science and.
Mark Stolowitz¶Canary Center at Canary Foundation, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304; College of Science and.
Olga Vitek**College of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115 o.vitek@neu.edu.
Purdue University West Lafayette · USStanford University · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry imaging is a powerful tool for investigating the spatial distribution of chemical compounds in a biological sample such as tissue. Two common goals of these experiments are unsupervised segmentation of images into newly discovered homogeneous segments and supervised classification of images into predefined classes. In both cases, the important secondary goals are to characterize the uncertainty associated with the segmentation and with the classification and to characterize the spectral features that define each segment or class. Recent analysis methods have focused on the spatial structure of the data to improve results. However, they either do not address these secondary goals or do this with separate post hoc procedures.We introduce spatial shrunken centroids, a statistical model-based framework for both supervised classification and unsupervised segmentation. It takes as input sets of previously detected, aligned, quantified, and normalized spectral features and expresses both spatial and multivariate nature of the data using probabilistic modeling. It selects informative subsets of spectral features that define each unsupervised segment or supervised class and quantifies and visualizes the uncertainty in spatial segmentations and in tissue classification. In the unsupervised setting, it also guides the choice of an appropriate number of segments. We demonstrate the usefulness of this framework in a supervised human renal cell carcinoma experimental dataset and several unsupervised experimental datasets, including a pig fetus cross-section, three rodent brains, and a controlled image with known ground truth. This framework is available for use within the open-source R package Cardinal as part of a full pipeline for the processing, visualization, and statistical analysis of mass spectrometry imaging experiments.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIonsMass SpectrometryModels, StatisticalRodentiaSwineIons

Identifiers

PMID26796117
PMCPMC4858953
OpenAlexW2257575442

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.