Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28966837›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2017

A Methodology for Texture Feature-based Quality Assessment in Nucleus Segmentation of Histopathology Image.

Si Wen, Tahsin M Kurc, Yi Gao, Tianhao Zhao, Joel H Saltz, Wei Zhu

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Comparison of Different Classifiers with Active Learning to Support Quality Control in Nucleus Segmentation in Pathology Images.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018
    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.

Si WenDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Tahsin M KurcDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Yi GaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Tianhao ZhaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Joel H SaltzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Wei ZhuDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA.

Funding

Image Mining for Comparative Analysis of Expression Patterns in Tissue MicroarrayR01LM009239 · NLM · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI FORAN, DAVID J, SALTZ, JOEL H. · 2007 to 2016
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextImage segmentation pipelines often are sensitive to algorithm input parameters. Algorithm parameters optimized for a set of images do not necessarily produce good-quality-segmentation results for other images. Even within an image, some regions may not be well segmented due to a number of factors, including multiple pieces of tissue with distinct characteristics, differences in staining of the tissue, normal versus tumor regions, and tumor heterogeneity. Evaluation of quality of segmentation results is an important step in image analysis. It is very labor intensive to do quality assessment manually with large image datasets because a whole-slide tissue image may have hundreds of thousands of nuclei. Semi-automatic mechanisms are needed to assist researchers and application developers to detect image regions with bad segmentations efficiently.

aimsOur goal is to develop and evaluate a machine-learning-based semi-automated workflow to assess quality of nucleus segmentation results in a large set of whole-slide tissue images.

methodsWe propose a quality control methodology, in which machine-learning algorithms are trained with image intensity and texture features to produce a classification model. This model is applied to image patches in a whole-slide tissue image to predict the quality of nucleus segmentation in each patch. The training step of our methodology involves the selection and labeling of regions by a pathologist in a set of images to create the training dataset. The image regions are partitioned into patches. A set of intensity and texture features is computed for each patch. A classifier is trained with the features and the labels assigned by the pathologist. At the end of this process, a classification model is generated. The classification step applies the classification model to unlabeled test images. Each test image is partitioned into patches. The classification model is applied to each patch to predict the patch's label.

resultsThe proposed methodology has been evaluated by assessing the segmentation quality of a segmentation method applied to images from two cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas; WHO Grade II lower grade glioma (LGG) and lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). The results show that our method performs well in predicting patches with good-quality segmentations and achieves F1 scores 84.7% for LGG and 75.43% for LUAD.

conclusionsAs image scanning technologies advance, large volumes of whole-slide tissue images will be available for research and clinical use. Efficient approaches for the assessment of quality and robustness of output from computerized image analysis workflows will become increasingly critical to extracting useful quantitative information from tissue images. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of machine-learning-based semi-automated techniques to assist researchers and algorithm developers in this process.

Indexed as

Classificationnuclei segmentation quality assessmenttexture feature

Identifiers

PMID28966837
PMCPMC5609357

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.