Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31506634›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2020

Automated computerized image analysis for the user-independent evaluation of disease severity in preclinical models of NAFLD/NASH.

Maxime De Rudder, Caroline Bouzin, Maxime Nachit, Heloïse Louvegny, Greetje Vande Velde, Yvon Julé, Isabelle A Leclercq

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maxime De RudderLaboratory of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
Caroline BouzinImaging platform 2IP, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0694-1947
Maxime NachitLaboratory of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
Heloïse LouvegnyLaboratory of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
Greetje Vande VeldeDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine & MoSAIC, Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-3993
Yvon JuléBiocellvia, Marseille, France.
Isabelle A LeclercqLaboratory of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. isabelle.leclercq@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7934-6693
UCLouvain · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathologists use a semiquantitative scoring system (NAS or SAF score) to facilitate the reporting of disease severity and evolution. Similar scores are applied for the same purposes in rodents. Histological scores have inherent inter- and intra-observer variability and yield discrete and not continuous values. Here we performed an automatic numerical quantification of NASH features on liver sections in common preclinical NAFLD/NASH models. High-fat diet-fed foz/foz mice (Foz HF) or wild-type mice (WT HF) known to develop progressive NASH or an uncomplicated steatosis, respectively, and C57Bl6 mice fed a choline-deficient high-fat diet (CDAA) to induce steatohepatitis were analyzed at various time points. Automated software image analysis of steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis was performed on digital images from entire liver sections. Data obtained were compared with the NAS score, biochemical quantification, and gene expression. As histologically assessed, WT HF mice had normal liver up to week 34 when they harbor mild steatosis with if any, little inflammation. Foz HF mice exhibited grade 2 steatosis as early as week 4, grade 3 steatosis at week 12 up to week 34; inflammation and ballooning increased gradually with time. Automated measurement of steatosis (macrovesicular steatosis area) revealed a strong correlation with steatosis scores (r = 0.89), micro-CT liver density, liver lipid content (r = 0.89), and gene expression of CD36 (r = 0.87). Automatic assessment of the number of F4/80-immunolabelled crown-like structures strongly correlated with conventional inflammatory scores (r = 0.79). In Foz HF mice, collagen deposition, evident at week 20 and progressing at week 34, was automatically quantified on picrosirius red-stained entire liver sections. The automated procedure also faithfully captured and quantitated macrovesicular steatosis, mixed inflammation, and pericellular fibrosis in CDAA-induced steatohepatitis. In conclusion, the automatic numerical analysis represents a promising quantitative method to rapidly monitor NAFLD activity with high-throughput in large preclinical studies and for accurate monitoring of disease evolution.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSeverity of Illness IndexAnimalsFibrosisLipidsLiverMacrophagesMaleMiceNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseX-Ray MicrotomographyLipids

Identifiers

PMID31506634
OpenAlexW2973222429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.