Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959190›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

IMC-Denoise: a content aware denoising pipeline to enhance Imaging Mass Cytometry.

Peng Lu, Karolyn A Oetjen, Diane E Bender, Marianna B Ruzinova, Daniel A C Fisher, Kevin G Shim, Russell K Pachynski, W Nathaniel Brennen, Stephen T Oh, Daniel C Link and 1 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peng Lu *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3259-474X
Karolyn A Oetjen *Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2846-8831
Diane E BenderThe Bursky Center for Human Immunology and Immunotherapy Programs Immunomonitoring Laboratory, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8311-4390
Marianna B RuzinovaDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
Daniel A C FisherDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
Kevin G ShimDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
Russell K PachynskiDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
W Nathaniel BrennenDepartment of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (SKCCC), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9807-7433
Stephen T OhDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8564-5400
Daniel C LinkDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3170-7581
Daniel L J ThorekDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. thorekd@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2437-1239
Washington University in St. Louis · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
Washington University Rheumatic DiseasesResearch Resource-based CenterP30AR073752 · NIAMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Christine T. Pham · 2018 to 2026
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR073752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging Mass Cytometry (IMC) is an emerging multiplexed imaging technology for analyzing complex microenvironments using more than 40 molecularly-specific channels. However, this modality has unique data processing requirements, particularly for patient tissue specimens where signal-to-noise ratios for markers can be low, despite optimization, and pixel intensity artifacts can deteriorate image quality and downstream analysis. Here we demonstrate an automated content-aware pipeline, IMC-Denoise, to restore IMC images deploying a differential intensity map-based restoration (DIMR) algorithm for removing hot pixels and a self-supervised deep learning algorithm for shot noise image filtering (DeepSNiF). IMC-Denoise outperforms existing methods for adaptive hot pixel and background noise removal, with significant image quality improvement in modeled data and datasets from multiple pathologies. This includes in technically challenging human bone marrow; we achieve noise level reduction of 87% for a 5.6-fold higher contrast-to-noise ratio, and more accurate background noise removal with approximately 2 × improved F1 score. Our approach enhances manual gating and automated phenotyping with cell-scale downstream analyses. Verified by manual annotations, spatial and density analysis for targeted cell groups reveal subtle but significant differences of cell populations in diseased bone marrow. We anticipate that IMC-Denoise will provide similar benefits across mass cytometric applications to more deeply characterize complex tissue microenvironments.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtifactsHumansImage CytometryImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID36959190
PMCPMC10036333
OpenAlexW4360618733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read77
table measurements read2
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.