Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31017894›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A fully automated, faster noise rejection approach to increasing the analytical capability of chemical imaging for digital histopathology.

Soumyajit Gupta, Shachi Mittal, Andre Kajdacsy-Balla, Rohit Bhargava, Chandrajit Bajaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. SketchyCoreSVD: SketchySVD from Random Subsampling of the Data Matrix.Proceedings. IEEE International Congress on Big Data · 2019
    Article
  3. A Streaming model for Generalized Rayleigh with extension to Minimum Noise Fraction.Proceedings : ... IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE International Conference on Big Data · 2019
    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

5 authors.

Soumyajit GuptaDepartment of Computer Science, Computational Visualization Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78705, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8145-9347
Shachi MittalDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States of America.
Andre Kajdacsy-BallaDepartment of Pathology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612, United States of America.
Rohit BhargavaDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States of America.
Chandrajit BajajDepartment of Computer Science, Computational Visualization Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78705, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9619-3278

Funding

Mathematical Chemical Imaging with Uncertainty Quantification R01GM117594 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI BAJAJ, CHANDRAJIT L · 2015 to 2018
$1.6M
Polar sampling and optimization of protein-ligand cocrystal structuresR41GM116300 · NIGMS · GFREE BIO, LLC · PI BAJAJ, CHANDRAJIT L, REYNOLDS, CHARLES H. · 2016 to 2016
$225k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM117594NIGMS NIH HHS R41 GM116300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical hyperspectral imaging (HSI) data is naturally high dimensional and large. There are thus inherent manual trade-offs in acquisition time, and the quality of data. Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF) developed by Green et al. [1] has been extensively studied as a method for noise removal in HSI data. It too, however entails a manual speed-accuracy trade-off, namely the process of manually selecting the relevant bands in the MNF space. This process currently takes roughly around a month's time for acquiring and pre-processing an entire TMA with acceptable signal to noise ratio. We present three approaches termed 'Fast MNF', 'Approx MNF' and 'Rand MNF' where the computational time of the algorithm is reduced, as well as the entire process of band selection is fully automated. This automated approach is shown to perform at the same level of accuracy as MNF with now large speedup factors, resulting in the same task to be accomplished in hours. The different approximations produced by the three algorithms, show the reconstruction accuracy vs storage (50×) and runtime speed (60×) trade-off. We apply the approach for automating the denoising of different tissue histology samples, in which the accuracy of classification (differentiating between the different histologic and pathologic classes) strongly depends on the SNR (signal to noise ratio) of recovered data. Therefore, we also compare the effect of the proposed denoising algorithms on classification accuracy. Since denoising HSI data is done unsupervised, we also use a metric that assesses the quality of denoising in the image domain between the noisy and denoised image in the absence of ground truth.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHistocytological Preparation TechniquesImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSignal-To-Noise RatioHumans

Identifiers

PMID31017894
PMCPMC6481772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.