Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29746503›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Nuclear IHC enumeration: A digital phantom to evaluate the performance of automated algorithms in digital pathology.

Muhammad Khalid Khan Niazi, Fazly Salleh Abas, Caglar Senaras, Michael Pennell, Berkman Sahiner, Weijie Chen, John Opfer, Robert Hasserjian, Abner Louissaint, Arwa Shana'ah and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Recommendations on compiling test datasets for evaluating artificial intelligence solutions in pathology.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors.

Muhammad Khalid Khan NiaziCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1278-7512
Fazly Salleh AbasFaculty of Engineering and Technology, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia.
Caglar SenarasCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States of America.
Michael PennellDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Berkman SahinerUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Weijie ChenUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
John OpferDepartment of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Robert HasserjianDepartment of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Abner LouissaintDepartment of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Arwa Shana'ahDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Gerard LozanskiDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Metin N GurcanCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Pathology Image Informatics Platform for visualization, analysis and managementU24CA199374 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI GURCAN, METIN NAFI, MADABHUSHI, ANANT · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
Computer-based assessment of tumor microenvironment (TME) in Follicular LymphomaR01CA134451 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GURCAN, METIN NAFI, LOZANSKI, GERARD · 2009 to 2017
$2.3M
Task-Specific Compression for Biomedical Big DataU01CA198945 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI BILGIN, ALI · 2015 to 2017
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA134451NCI NIH HHS U01 CA198945NCI NIH HHS U24 CA199374NIH HHS R01CA134451NIH HHS U01 CA198945NIH HHS U24CA199374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic and accurate detection of positive and negative nuclei from images of immunostained tissue biopsies is critical to the success of digital pathology. The evaluation of most nuclei detection algorithms relies on manually generated ground truth prepared by pathologists, which is unfortunately time-consuming and suffers from inter-pathologist variability. In this work, we developed a digital immunohistochemistry (IHC) phantom that can be used for evaluating computer algorithms for enumeration of IHC positive cells. Our phantom development consists of two main steps, 1) extraction of the individual as well as nuclei clumps of both positive and negative nuclei from real WSI images, and 2) systematic placement of the extracted nuclei clumps on an image canvas. The resulting images are visually similar to the original tissue images. We created a set of 42 images with different concentrations of positive and negative nuclei. These images were evaluated by four board certified pathologists in the task of estimating the ratio of positive to total number of nuclei. The resulting concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) between the pathologist and the true ratio range from 0.86 to 0.95 (point estimates). The same ratio was also computed by an automated computer algorithm, which yielded a CCC value of 0.99. Reading the phantom data with known ground truth, the human readers show substantial variability and lower average performance than the computer algorithm in terms of CCC. This shows the limitation of using a human reader panel to establish a reference standard for the evaluation of computer algorithms, thereby highlighting the usefulness of the phantom developed in this work. Using our phantom images, we further developed a function that can approximate the true ratio from the area of the positive and negative nuclei, hence avoiding the need to detect individual nuclei. The predicted ratios of 10 held-out images using the function (trained on 32 images) are within ±2.68% of the true ratio. Moreover, we also report the evaluation of a computerized image analysis method on the synthetic tissue dataset.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCell NucleusHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryPhantoms, ImagingReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29746503
PMCPMC5944932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.