ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017
Determining Image Processing Features Describing the Appearance of Challenging Mitotic Figures and Miscounted Nonmitotic Objects.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in medical imaging practice: looking to the future.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2019Article
- Computer-Assisted Nuclear Atypia Scoring of Breast Cancer: a Preliminary Study.Journal of digital imaging · 2019Article
- Validation of mitotic cell quantification via microscopy and multiple whole-slide scanners.Diagnostic pathology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextPrevious studies showed that the agreement among pathologists in recognition of mitoses in breast slides is fairly modest.
aimsDetermining the significantly different quantitative features among easily identifiable mitoses, challenging mitoses, and miscounted nonmitoses within breast slides and identifying which color spaces capture the difference among groups better than others. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe dataset contained 453 mitoses and 265 miscounted objects in breast slides. The mitoses were grouped into three categories based on the confidence degree of three pathologists who annotated them. The mitoses annotated as "probably a mitosis" by the majority of pathologists were considered as the challenging category. The miscounted objects were recognized as a mitosis or probably a mitosis by only one of the pathologists. The mitoses were segmented using STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The Kruskal-Wallis H-test followed by the Tukey-Kramer test was used to identify significantly different features.
resultsThe results indicated that challenging mitoses were smaller and rounder compared to other mitoses. Among different features, the Gabor textural features differed more than others between challenging mitoses and the easily identifiable ones. Sizes of the non-mitoses were similar to easily identifiable mitoses, but nonmitoses were rounder. The intensity-based features from chromatin channels were the most discriminative features between the easily identifiable mitoses and the miscounted objects.
conclusionsQuantitative features can be used to describe the characteristics of challenging mitoses and miscounted nonmitotic objects.
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.