Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28584683›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017

Training Nuclei Detection Algorithms with Simple Annotations.

Henning Kost, André Homeyer, Jesper Molin, Claes Lundström, Horst Karl Hahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Henning KostFraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
André HomeyerFraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Jesper MolinDepartment of Applied Information Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 41258 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Claes LundströmSectra AB, 58330 Linköping, Sweden.
Horst Karl HahnFraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, 28359 Bremen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerating good training datasets is essential for machine learning-based nuclei detection methods. However, creating exhaustive nuclei contour annotations, to derive optimal training data from, is often infeasible.

methodsWe compared different approaches for training nuclei detection methods solely based on nucleus center markers. Such markers contain less accurate information, especially with regard to nuclear boundaries, but can be produced much easier and in greater quantities. The approaches use different automated sample extraction methods to derive image positions and class labels from nucleus center markers. In addition, the approaches use different automated sample selection methods to improve the detection quality of the classification algorithm and reduce the run time of the training process. We evaluated the approaches based on a previously published generic nuclei detection algorithm and a set of Ki-67-stained breast cancer images.

resultsA Voronoi tessellation-based sample extraction method produced the best performing training sets. However, subsampling of the extracted training samples was crucial. Even simple class balancing improved the detection quality considerably. The incorporation of active learning led to a further increase in detection quality.

conclusionsWith appropriate sample extraction and selection methods, nuclei detection algorithms trained on the basis of simple center marker annotations can produce comparable quality to algorithms trained on conventionally created training sets.

Indexed as

Active learningmachine learningnuclei detectiontraining set generation

Identifiers

PMID28584683
PMCPMC5450511

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.