Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37370719›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Comparing and Correcting Spectral Sensitivities between Multispectral Microscopes: A Prerequisite to Clinical Implementation.

Margaret Eminizer, Melinda Nagy, Elizabeth L Engle, Sigfredo Soto-Diaz, Andrew Jorquera, Jeffrey S Roskes, Benjamin F Green, Richard Wilton, Janis M Taube, Alexander S Szalay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
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

10 authors.

Margaret EminizerDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4591-2225
Melinda NagyDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.
Elizabeth L EngleDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6375-9060
Sigfredo Soto-DiazDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-5516-6330
Andrew JorqueraDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Jeffrey S RoskesDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8761-0490
Benjamin F GreenDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Richard WiltonDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1263-5532
Janis M TaubeDepartment of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8273-4395
Alexander S SzalayDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4108-3282

Funding

Analytic and Clinical Validation of a 7-plex MIF Assay for Predictive Response of Advanced NSCLC to Anti-PD-1 based TherapyUH2CA272905 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TAUBE, JANIS M. · 2022 to 2023
$416k
Melanoma Research Alliance 686432NCI NIH HHS UH2 CA272905NIH HHS 1UH2CA272905-01
6 · The paper itself

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

calibrationhigh throughputimagingimmunofluorescence microscopypathologysystematics

Identifiers

PMID37370719
PMCPMC10296646

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.