Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30915258›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2019

Automated Computational Detection, Quantitation, and Mapping of Mitosis in Whole-Slide Images for Clinically Actionable Surgical Pathology Decision Support.

Munish Puri, Shelley B Hoover, Stephen M Hewitt, Bih-Rong Wei, Hibret Amare Adissu, Charles H C Halsey, Jessica Beck, Charles Bradley, Sarah D Cramer, Amy C Durham and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. An Evaluation Into the Robustness of Grading of Pleural Mesothelioma Outside of Specialist Centres.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Counting mitoses: SI(ze) matters!Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

22 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Munish PuriLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Shelley B HooverLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stephen M HewittFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick, MD, USA.
Bih-Rong WeiLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Hibret Amare AdissuLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Charles H C HalseyLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jessica BeckLaboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Charles BradleyDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sarah D CramerCancer and Inflammation Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Amy C DurhamDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
D Glen EsplinAnimal Reference Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Chad FrankDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
L Tiffany LyleWomen's Malignancies Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lawrence D McGillAnimal Reference Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Melissa D SánchezDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paula A SchafferDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Ryan P TraslavinaSection of Infections of the Nervous System, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Elizabeth BuzaDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Howard H YangLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Maxwell P LeeLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jennifer E DwyerLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
R Mark SimpsonLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Center for Cancer Research · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USNational Cancer Institute · USColorado State University · USLeidos Biomedical Research Inc. (United States)National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke · US

Funding

Integrated analyses of genetics, epigenetics, and gene expressionZIHBC011703 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI LEE, MAXWELL · 2016 to 2025
$10.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining mitotic index by counting mitotic figures (MFs) microscopically from tumor areas with most abundant MF (hotspots [HS]) produces a prognostically useful tumor grading biomarker. However, interobserver concordance identifying MF and HS can be poorly reproducible. Immunolabeling MF, coupled with computer-automated counting by image analysis, can improve reproducibility. A computational system for obtaining MF values across digitized whole-slide images (WSIs) was sought that would minimize impact of artifacts, generate values clinically relatable to counting ten high-power microscopic fields of view typical in conventional microscopy, and that would reproducibly map HS topography. MATERIALS AND

methodsRelatively low-resolution WSI scans (0.50 μm/pixel) were imported in grid-tile format for feature-based MF segmentation, from naturally occurring canine melanomas providing a wide range of proliferative activity. MF feature extraction conformed to anti-phospho-histone H3-immunolabeled mitotic (M) phase cells. Computer vision image processing was established to subtract key artifacts, obtain MF counts, and employ rotationally invariant feature extraction to map MF topography.

resultsThe automated topometric HS (TMHS) algorithm identified mitotic HS and mapped select tissue tiles with greatest MF counts back onto WSI thumbnail images to plot HS topographically. Influence of dye, pigment, and extraneous structure artifacts was minimized. TMHS diagnostic decision support included image overlay graphics of HS topography, as well as a spreadsheet and plot of tile-based MF count values. TMHS performance was validated examining both mitotic HS counting and mapping functions. Significantly correlated TMHS MF mapping and metrics were demonstrated using repeat analysis with WSI in different orientation (

conclusionsAutomated TMHS MF segmentation and feature engineering performance were interchangeable with both observer and OCA in digital mode. Moreover, enhanced HS location accuracy and superior method reproducibility were achieved using the automated TMHS algorithm compared to the current practice employing clinical microscopy.

Indexed as

Cancer gradingcomputer-assisted diagnosis/prognosisfeature engineeringimage segmentationmethod reproducibilitypathology imaging informaticsproliferation index

Identifiers

PMID30915258
PMCPMC6396430
OpenAlexW2912625945

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.