Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37675000›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nephrology2022

Machine learning in renal pathology.

Matthew Nicholas Basso, Moumita Barua, Julien Meyer, Rohan John, April Khademi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew Nicholas BassoImage Analysis in Medicine Lab (IAMLAB), Department of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Moumita BaruaDivision of Nephrology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Julien MeyerSchool of Health Services Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rohan JohnDepartment of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
April KhademiImage Analysis in Medicine Lab (IAMLAB), Department of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Toronto Metropolitan University · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CAToronto General Hospital Research InstituteUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: When assessing kidney biopsies, pathologists use light microscopy, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopy to describe and diagnose glomerular lesions and diseases. These methods can be laborious, costly, fraught with inter-observer variability, and can have delays in turn-around time. Thus, computational approaches can be designed as screening and/or diagnostic tools, potentially relieving pathologist time, healthcare resources, while also having the ability to identify novel biomarkers, including subvisual features. Methods: Here, we implement our recently published biomarker feature extraction (BFE) model along with 3 pre-trained deep learning models (VGG16, VGG19, and InceptionV3) to diagnose 3 glomerular diseases using PAS-stained digital pathology images alone. The BFE model extracts a panel of 233 explainable features related to underlying pathology, which are subsequently narrowed down to 10 morphological and microstructural texture features for classification with a linear discriminant analysis machine learning classifier. 45 patient renal biopsies (371 glomeruli) from minimal change disease (MCD), membranous nephropathy (MN), and thin-basement membrane nephropathy (TBMN) were split into training/validation and held out sets. For the 3 deep learningmodels, data augmentation and Grad-CAM were used for better performance and interpretability. Results: The BFE model showed glomerular validation accuracy of 67.6% and testing accuracy of 76.8%. All deep learning approaches had higher validation accuracies (most for VGG16 at 78.5%) but lower testing accuracies. The highest testing accuracy at the glomerular level was VGG16 at 71.9%, while at the patient-level was InceptionV3 at 73.3%. Discussion: The results highlight the potential of both traditional machine learning and deep learning-based approaches for kidney biopsy evaluation.

Indexed as

computational pathologydeep learningdigital image analysisglomerulusmachine learningmembranous nephropathyminimal change diseasethin-basement membrane nephropathy

Identifiers

PMID37675000
PMCPMC10479587
OpenAlexW4310209114

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.