ArticleScientific reports2020
VISTA: VIsual Semantic Tissue Analysis for pancreatic disease quantification in murine cohorts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suppression of dystroglycan function accompanies pancreatic acinar-to-ductal metaplasia and favours dysplasia development.The Journal of pathology · 2024Article
- MYC Deregulation and PTEN Loss Model Tumor and Stromal Heterogeneity of Aggressive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Nature communications · 2023Article
- 3D multiplexed tissue imaging reconstruction and optimized region of interest (ROI) selection through deep learning model of channels embedding.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- CODA: quantitative 3D reconstruction of large tissues at cellular resolution.Nature methods · 2022Article
- Computational multiplex panel reduction to maximize information retention in breast cancer tissue microarrays.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanistic disease progression studies using animal models require objective and quantifiable assessment of tissue pathology. Currently quantification relies heavily on staining methods which can be expensive, labor/time-intensive, inconsistent across laboratories and batch, and produce uneven staining that is prone to misinterpretation and investigator bias. We developed an automated semantic segmentation tool utilizing deep learning for rapid and objective quantification of histologic features relying solely on hematoxylin and eosin stained pancreatic tissue sections. The tool segments normal acinar structures, the ductal phenotype of acinar-to-ductal metaplasia (ADM), and dysplasia with Dice coefficients of 0.79, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively. To deal with inaccurate pixelwise manual annotations, prediction accuracy was also evaluated against biological truth using immunostaining mean structural similarity indexes (SSIM) of 0.925 and 0.920 for amylase and pan-keratin respectively. Our tool's disease area quantifications were correlated to the quantifications of immunostaining markers (DAPI, amylase, and cytokeratins; Spearman correlation score = 0.86, 0.97, and 0.92) in unseen dataset (n = 25). Moreover, our tool distinguishes ADM from dysplasia, which are not reliably distinguished with immunostaining, and demonstrates generalizability across murine cohorts with pancreatic disease. We quantified the changes in histologic feature abundance for murine cohorts with oncogenic Kras-driven disease, and the predictions fit biological expectations, showing stromal expansion, a reduction of normal acinar tissue, and an increase in both ADM and dysplasia as disease progresses. Our tool promises to accelerate and improve the quantification of pancreatic disease in animal studies and become a unifying quantification tool across laboratories.
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.