Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37816904›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2023

An end-to-end workflow for multiplexed image processing and analysis.

Jonas Windhager, Vito Riccardo Tomaso Zanotelli, Daniel Schulz, Lasse Meyer, Michelle Daniel, Bernd Bodenmiller, Nils Eling

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 189 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
189citing papers in PubMed
36.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

189 citing papers in PubMed, 241 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

129 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonas WindhagerDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2111-5291
Vito Riccardo Tomaso ZanotelliDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel SchulzDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0913-1678
Lasse MeyerDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-1660-1199
Michelle DanielDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bernd BodenmillerDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. bernd.bodenmiller@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-6325-7861
Nils ElingDepartment of Quantitative Biomedicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. nils.eling@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-4711-1176
University of Zurich · CHUppsala University · SE

Funding

EC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 European Research Council (H2020 Excellent Science - European Research Council) ERC-2019-CoGEC | EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 | H2020 Priority Excellent Science | H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (H2020 Excellent Science - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions) 892225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiplexed imaging enables the simultaneous spatial profiling of dozens of biological molecules in tissues at single-cell resolution. Extracting biologically relevant information, such as the spatial distribution of cell phenotypes from multiplexed tissue imaging data, involves a number of computational tasks, including image segmentation, feature extraction and spatially resolved single-cell analysis. Here, we present an end-to-end workflow for multiplexed tissue image processing and analysis that integrates previously developed computational tools to enable these tasks in a user-friendly and customizable fashion. For data quality assessment, we highlight the utility of napari-imc for interactively inspecting raw imaging data and the cytomapper R/Bioconductor package for image visualization in R. Raw data preprocessing, image segmentation and feature extraction are performed using the steinbock toolkit. We showcase two alternative approaches for segmenting cells on the basis of supervised pixel classification and pretrained deep learning models. The extracted single-cell data are then read, processed and analyzed in R. The protocol describes the use of community-established data containers, facilitating the application of R/Bioconductor packages for dimensionality reduction, single-cell visualization and phenotyping. We provide instructions for performing spatially resolved single-cell analysis, including community analysis, cellular neighborhood detection and cell-cell interaction testing using the imcRtools R/Bioconductor package. The workflow has been previously applied to imaging mass cytometry data, but can be easily adapted to other highly multiplexed imaging technologies. This protocol can be implemented by researchers with basic bioinformatics training, and the analysis of the provided dataset can be completed within 5-6 h. An extended version is available at https://bodenmillergroup.github.io/IMCDataAnalysis/ .

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedSoftwareComputational BiologySingle-Cell AnalysisWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID37816904
OpenAlexW4387494379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.