Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30246927›Full record

ArticleCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology2018

How to Agree on a CTC: Evaluating the Consensus in Circulating Tumor Cell Scoring.

Leonie L Zeune, Sanne de Wit, A M Sofie Berghuis, Maarten J IJzerman, Leon W M M Terstappen, Christoph Brune

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Leonie L ZeuneDepartment of Medical Cell BioPhysics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1741-2410
Sanne de WitDepartment of Medical Cell BioPhysics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
A M Sofie BerghuisDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Maarten J IJzermanDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Leon W M M TerstappenDepartment of Medical Cell BioPhysics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Christoph BruneDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For using counts of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the clinic to aid a physician's decision, its reported values will need to be accurate and comparable between institutions. Many technologies have become available to enumerate and characterize CTCs, thereby showing a large range of reported values. Here we introduce an Open Source CTC scoring tool to enable comparison of different reviewers and facilitate the reach of a consensus on assigning objects as CTCs. One hundred images generated from two different platforms were used to assess concordance between 15 reviewers and an expert panel. Large differences were observed between reviewers in assigning objects as CTCs urging the need for computer recognition of CTCs. A demonstration of a deep learning approach on the 100 images showed the promise of this technique for future CTC enumeration. © 2018 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCell CountConsensusFlow CytometryHumansLung NeoplasmsNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingACCEPTAgreementconsensusCTCdeep learningdefinitionexpertsground truthreviewersscoring

Identifiers

PMID30246927
PMCPMC6585854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.