ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2019
Sensitivity analysis in digital pathology: Handling large number of parameters with compute expensive workflows.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital pathology imaging enables valuable quantitative characterizations of tissue state at the sub-cellular level. While there is a growing set of methods for analysis of whole slide tissue images, many of them are sensitive to changes in input parameters. Evaluating how analysis results are affected by variations in input parameters is important for the development of robust methods. Executing algorithm sensitivity analyses by systematically varying input parameters is an expensive task because a single evaluation run with a moderate number of tissue images may take hours or days. Our work investigates the use of Surrogate Models (SMs) along with parallel execution to speed up parameter sensitivity analysis (SA). This approach significantly reduces the SA cost, because the SM execution is inexpensive. The evaluation of several SM strategies with two image segmentation workflows demonstrates that a SA study with SMs attains results close to a SA with real application runs (mean absolute error lower than 0.022), while the SM accelerates the SA execution by 51 × . We also show that, although the number of parameters in the example workflows is high, most of the uncertainty can be associated with a few parameters. In order to identify the impact of variations in segmentation results to downstream analyses, we carried out a survival analysis with 387 Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma cases. This analysis was repeated using 3 values for the most significant parameters identified by the SA for the two segmentation algorithms; about 600 million cell nuclei were segmented per run. The results show that significance of the survival correlations of patient groups, assessed by a logrank test, are strongly affected by the segmentation parameter changes. This indicates that sensitivity analysis is an important tool for evaluating the stability of conclusions from image analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.