Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33948260›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and translational science2020

Developing image analysis pipelines of whole-slide images: Pre- and post-processing.

Byron Smith, Meyke Hermsen, Elizabeth Lesser, Deepak Ravichandar, Walter Kremers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. AI in Pathology: What could possibly go wrong?Seminars in diagnostic pathology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Byron SmithDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9318-2437
Meyke HermsenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Elizabeth LesserDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Deepak RavichandarDepartment of Management Engineering and Consulting, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Walter KremersDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning has pushed the scope of digital pathology beyond simple digitization and telemedicine. The incorporation of these algorithms in routine workflow is on the horizon and maybe a disruptive technology, reducing processing time, and increasing detection of anomalies. While the newest computational methods enjoy much of the press, incorporating deep learning into standard laboratory workflow requires many more steps than simply training and testing a model. Image analysis using deep learning methods often requires substantial pre- and post-processing order to improve interpretation and prediction. Similar to any data processing pipeline, images must be prepared for modeling and the resultant predictions need further processing for interpretation. Examples include artifact detection, color normalization, image subsampling or tiling, removal of errant predictions, etc. Once processed, predictions are complicated by image file size - typically several gigabytes when unpacked. This forces images to be tiled, meaning that a series of subsamples from the whole-slide image (WSI) are used in modeling. Herein, we review many of these methods as they pertain to the analysis of biopsy slides and discuss the multitude of unique issues that are part of the analysis of very large images.

Indexed as

analysis pipelinecomputer visiondata sciencedeep learningImage analysispathology

Identifiers

PMID33948260
PMCPMC8057393

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.