Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30662794›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2018

Super-Resolution Digital Pathology Image Processing of Bone Marrow Aspirate and Cytology Smears and Tissue Sections.

Amol Singh, Robert S Ohgami

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amol SinghDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Robert S OhgamiDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate digital pathology image analysis depends on high-quality images. As such, it is imperative to obtain digital images with high resolution for downstream data analysis. While hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue section slides from solid tumors contain three-dimensional information, these data have been ignored in digital pathology. In addition, in cytology and bone marrow aspirate smears, the three-dimensional nature of the specimen has precluded efficient analysis of such morphologic data. An individual image snapshot at a single focal distance is often not sufficient for accurate diagnoses and multiple whole-slide images at different focal distances are necessary for diagnostics. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe describe a novel computational pipeline and processing program for obtaining a super-resolved image from multiple static images at different z-planes in overlapping but separate frames. This program, MULTI-Z, performs image alignment, Gaussian smoothing, and Laplacian filtering to construct a final super-resolution image from multiple images.

resultsWe applied this algorithm and program to images of cytology and H&E-stained sections and demonstrated significant improvements in both resolution and image quality by objective data analyses (24% increase in sharpness and focus).

conclusionsWith the use of our program, super-resolved images of cytology and H&E-stained tissue sections can be obtained to potentially allow for more optimal downstream computational analysis. This method is applicable to whole-slide scanned images.

Indexed as

Cytologydigital pathologyhigh resolutionsuper resolution

Identifiers

PMID30662794
PMCPMC6319039
OpenAlexW2906308783

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.