Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27644083›Full record

ArticleMedical image analysis2017

When machine vision meets histology: A comparative evaluation of model architecture for classification of histology sections.

Cheng Zhong, Ju Han, Alexander Borowsky, Bahram Parvin, Yunfu Wang, Hang Chang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical image analysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A bird's-eye view of deep learning in bioimage analysis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Unsupervised Transfer Learning via Multi-Scale Convolutional Sparse Coding for Biomedical Applications.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence · 2018
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Cheng ZhongLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA USA.
Ju HanLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA USA.
Alexander BorowskyCenter for Comparative Medicine, University of California, Davis,CA, USA.
Bahram ParvinDepartment of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV USA.
Yunfu WangLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA USA; Department of Neurology, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China.
Hang ChangLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA USA. Electronic address: hchang@lbl.gov.

Funding

Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI Laura Marcu · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
Molecular and Therapeutic Basis of Morphometric Aberrations in Brain TumorsR01CA184476 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI CHANG, HANG · 2015 to 2019
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classification of histology sections in large cohorts, in terms of distinct regions of microanatomy (e.g., stromal) and histopathology (e.g., tumor, necrosis), enables the quantification of tumor composition, and the construction of predictive models of genomics and clinical outcome. To tackle the large technical variations and biological heterogeneities, which are intrinsic in large cohorts, emerging systems utilize either prior knowledge from pathologists or unsupervised feature learning for invariant representation of the underlying properties in the data. However, to a large degree, the architecture for tissue histology classification remains unexplored and requires urgent systematical investigation. This paper is the first attempt to provide insights into three fundamental questions in tissue histology classification: I. Is unsupervised feature learning preferable to human engineered features? II. Does cellular saliency help? III. Does the sparse feature encoder contribute to recognition? We show that (a) in I, both Cellular Morphometric Feature and features from unsupervised feature learning lead to superior performance when compared to SIFT and [Color, Texture]; (b) in II, cellular saliency incorporation impairs the performance for systems built upon pixel-/patch-level features; and (c) in III, the effect of the sparse feature encoder is correlated with the robustness of features, and the performance can be consistently improved by the multi-stage extension of systems built upon both Cellular Morphmetric Feature and features from unsupervised feature learning. These insights are validated with two cohorts of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) and Kidney Clear Cell Carcinoma (KIRC).

Indexed as

Unsupervised Machine LearningColorHistological TechniquesHumansPattern Recognition, AutomatedClassificationComputational histopathologySparse feature encoderUnsupervised feature learning

Identifiers

PMID27644083
PMCPMC5099087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.