Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35226665›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Objective quantification of nerves in immunohistochemistry specimens of thyroid cancer utilising deep learning.

Indriani P Astono, James S Welsh, Christopher W Rowe, Phillip Jobling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. 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. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Indriani P AstonoSchool of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9873-8318
James S WelshSchool of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8313-1361
Christopher W RoweSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Phillip JoblingSchool of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2892-1843

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate quantification of nerves in cancer specimens is important to understand cancer behaviour. Typically, nerves are manually detected and counted in digitised images of thin tissue sections from excised tumours using immunohistochemistry. However the images are of a large size with nerves having substantial variation in morphology that renders accurate and objective quantification difficult using existing manual and automated counting techniques. Manual counting is precise, but time-consuming, susceptible to inconsistency and has a high rate of false negatives. Existing automated techniques using digitised tissue sections and colour filters are sensitive, however, have a high rate of false positives. In this paper we develop a new automated nerve detection approach, based on a deep learning model with an augmented classification structure. This approach involves pre-processing to extract the image patches for the deep learning model, followed by pixel-level nerve detection utilising the proposed deep learning model. Outcomes assessed were a) sensitivity of the model in detecting manually identified nerves (expert annotations), and b) the precision of additional model-detected nerves. The proposed deep learning model based approach results in a sensitivity of 89% and a precision of 75%. The code and pre-trained model are publicly available at https://github.com/IA92/Automated_Nerves_Quantification.

Indexed as

Deep LearningThyroid NeoplasmsHumansImmunohistochemistry

Identifiers

PMID35226665
PMCPMC8912900

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.