Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37750225›Full record

ArticleCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology2024

OPTIMAL: An OPTimized Imaging Mass cytometry AnaLysis framework for benchmarking segmentation and data exploration.

Bethany Hunter, Ioana Nicorescu, Emma Foster, David McDonald, Gillian Hulme, Andrew Fuller, Amanda Thomson, Thibaut Goldsborough, Catharien M U Hilkens, Joaquim Majo and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Spatial dynamics of CD39Nature communications · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. OPTIMAL: An OPTimized Imaging Mass cytometry AnaLysis framework for benchmarking segmentation and data exploration.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2024
    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

17 authors.

Bethany HunterFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ioana NicorescuTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Immunity and Inflammation Theme, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Emma FosterImage Analysis Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
David McDonaldFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Gillian HulmeFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andrew FullerFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Amanda ThomsonFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Thibaut GoldsboroughSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Catharien M U HilkensTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Immunity and Inflammation Theme, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Joaquim MajoCellular Pathology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Luke MilrossTransplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Newcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andrew FisherTransplantation and Regenerative Medicine, Newcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Peter BankheadCentre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, CRUK Scotland Centre, and Edinburgh Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
John WillsDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4347-5394
Paul ReesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Andrew FilbyFlow Cytometry Core Facility, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
George MercesBiosciences Institute, Innovation, Methodology and Application (IMA) Research Theme, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of imaging mass cytometry (IMC) data and other low-resolution multiplexed tissue imaging technologies is often confounded by poor single-cell segmentation and suboptimal approaches for data visualization and exploration. This can lead to inaccurate identification of cell phenotypes, states, or spatial relationships compared to reference data from single-cell suspension technologies. To this end we have developed the "OPTimized Imaging Mass cytometry AnaLysis (OPTIMAL)" framework to benchmark any approaches for cell segmentation, parameter transformation, batch effect correction, data visualization/clustering, and spatial neighborhood analysis. Using a panel of 27 metal-tagged antibodies recognizing well-characterized phenotypic and functional markers to stain the same Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) human tonsil sample tissue microarray over 12 temporally distinct batches we tested several cell segmentation models, a range of different arcsinh cofactor parameter transformation values, 5 different dimensionality reduction algorithms, and 2 clustering methods. Finally, we assessed the optimal approach for performing neighborhood analysis. We found that single-cell segmentation was improved by the use of an Ilastik-derived probability map but that issues with poor segmentation were only really evident after clustering and cell type/state identification and not always evident when using "classical" bivariate data display techniques. The optimal arcsinh cofactor for parameter transformation was 1 as it maximized the statistical separation between negative and positive signal distributions and a simple Z-score normalization step after arcsinh transformation eliminated batch effects. Of the five different dimensionality reduction approaches tested, PacMap gave the best data structure with FLOWSOM clustering out-performing phenograph in terms of cell type identification. We also found that neighborhood analysis was influenced by the method used for finding neighboring cells with a "disc" pixel expansion outperforming a "bounding box" approach combined with the need for filtering objects based on size and image-edge location. Importantly, OPTIMAL can be used to assess and integrate with any existing approach to IMC data analysis and, as it creates .FCS files from the segmentation output and allows for single-cell exploration to be conducted using a wide variety of accessible software and algorithms familiar to conventional flow cytometrists.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBenchmarkingCluster AnalysisHumansImage CytometrySoftwareimage analysisimage cytometryimaging mass cytometrytissue segmentation

Identifiers

PMID37750225
PMCPMC10952805

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.