ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of automated methods for quantitative evaluation of immunostaining: Towards digital pathology.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumour immune characterisation of primary triple-negative breast cancer using automated image quantification of immunohistochemistry-stained immune cells.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in ovarian cancer histopathology: a systematic review.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We sought to develop a novel method for a fully automated, robust quantification of protein biomarker expression within the epithelial component of high-grade serous ovarian tumors (HGSOC). Rather than defining thresholds for a given biomarker, the objective of this study in a small cohort of patients was to develop a method applicable to the many clinical situations in which immunomarkers need to be quantified. We aimed to quantify biomarker expression by correlating it with the heterogeneity of staining, using a non-subjective choice of scoring thresholds based on classical mathematical approaches. This could lead to a universal method for quantifying other immunohistochemical markers to guide pathologists in therapeutic decision-making. Methods: We studied a cohort of 25 cases of HGSOC for which three biomarkers predictive of the response observed Results: Stereology analysis of this calibration process produced a good correlation between the experts for both epithelium and immunostaining detection. There was also a good correlation between the experts and image processing. Image processing clearly revealed the respective proportions of low, medium, and high areas in a single tumor and showed that this parameter of heterogeneity could be included in a composite score, thus decreasing the level of discrepancy. Therefore, agreement with the pathologist was increased by taking heterogeneity into account. Conclusion and discussion: This simple, robust, calibrated method using basic tools and known parameters can be used to quantify and characterize the expression of protein biomarkers within the different tumor compartments. It is based on known mathematical thresholds and takes the intratumoral heterogeneity of staining into account. Although some discrepancies need to be diminished, correlation with the pathologist's classification was satisfactory. The method is replicable and can be used to analyze other biological and medical issues. This non-subjective technique for assessing protein biomarker expression uses a fully automated choice of thresholds (GMM) and defined composite scores that take the intra-tumor heterogeneity of immunostaining into account. It could help to avoid the misclassification of patients and its subsequent negative impact on therapeutic care.
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.