ArticleCancers2023
Comparing and Correcting Spectral Sensitivities between Multispectral Microscopes: A Prerequisite to Clinical Implementation.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer: updates and best practices for multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunofluorescence (IF) image analysis and data sharing.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Guideline
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multispectral, multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) microscopy has been used to great effect in research to identify cellular co-expression profiles and spatial relationships within tissue, providing a myriad of diagnostic advantages. As these technologies mature, it is essential that image data from mIF microscopes is reproducible and standardizable across devices. We sought to characterize and correct differences in illumination intensity and spectral sensitivity between three multispectral microscopes. We scanned eight melanoma tissue samples twice on each microscope and calculated their average tissue region flux intensities. We found a baseline average standard deviation of 29.9% across all microscopes, scans, and samples, which was reduced to 13.9% after applying sample-specific corrections accounting for differences in the tissue shown on each slide. We used a basic calibration model to correct sample- and microscope-specific effects on overall brightness and relative brightness as a function of the image layer. We tested the generalizability of the calibration procedure and found that applying corrections to independent validation subsets of the samples reduced the variation to 2.9 ± 0.03%. Variations in the unmixed marker expressions were reduced from 15.8% to 4.4% by correcting the raw images to a single reference microscope. Our findings show that mIF microscopes can be standardized for use in clinical pathology laboratories using a relatively simple correction model.
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.