Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37244964›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Panoptic quality should be avoided as a metric for assessing cell nuclei segmentation and classification in digital pathology.

Adrien Foucart, Olivier Debeir, Christine Decaestecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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. Article
  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

3 authors.

Adrien FoucartLaboratory of Image Synthesis and Analysis, École polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1050, Brussels, Belgium. Adrien.Foucart@ulb.be.
Olivier DebeirLaboratory of Image Synthesis and Analysis, École polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Christine DecaesteckerLaboratory of Image Synthesis and Analysis, École polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1050, Brussels, Belgium. Christine.Decaestecker@ulb.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Panoptic Quality (PQ), designed for the task of "Panoptic Segmentation" (PS), has been used in several digital pathology challenges and publications on cell nucleus instance segmentation and classification (ISC) since its introduction in 2019. Its purpose is to encompass the detection and the segmentation aspects of the task in a single measure, so that algorithms can be ranked according to their overall performance. A careful analysis of the properties of the metric, its application to ISC and the characteristics of nucleus ISC datasets, shows that is not suitable for this purpose and should be avoided. Through a theoretical analysis we demonstrate that PS and ISC, despite their similarities, have some fundamental differences that make PQ unsuitable. We also show that the use of the Intersection over Union as a matching rule and as a segmentation quality measure within PQ is not adapted for such small objects as nuclei. We illustrate these findings with examples taken from the NuCLS and MoNuSAC datasets. The code for replicating our results is available on GitHub ( https://github.com/adfoucart/panoptic-quality-suppl ).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCell NucleusImage Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID37244964
PMCPMC10224986

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.