Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37832430›Full record

ArticleComputer methods and programs in biomedicine2023

The NCI Imaging Data Commons as a platform for reproducible research in computational pathology.

Daniela P Schacherer, Markus D Herrmann, David A Clunie, Henning Höfener, William Clifford, William J R Longabaugh, Steve Pieper, Ron Kikinis, Andrey Fedorov, André Homeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. National Cancer Institute Imaging Data Commons: Toward Transparency, Reproducibility, and Scalability in Imaging Artificial Intelligence.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2023
    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

10 authors.

Daniela P SchachererFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Max-von-Laue-Straße 2, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Markus D HerrmannDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
David A CluniePixelMed Publishing LLC, Bangor, PA, USA.
Henning HöfenerFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Max-von-Laue-Straße 2, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
William CliffordInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA, USA.
William J R LongabaughInstitute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA, USA.
Steve PieperIsomics Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ron KikinisDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Andrey FedorovDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
André HomeyerFraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine MEVIS, Max-von-Laue-Straße 2, 28359 Bremen, Germany. Electronic address: andre.homeyer@mevis.fraunhofer.de.

Funding

Training and DisseminationP41EB015902 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KIKINIS, RON, WESTIN, CARL-FREDRIK · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201500003INIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015902
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesReproducibility is a major challenge in developing machine learning (ML)-based solutions in computational pathology (CompPath). The NCI Imaging Data Commons (IDC) provides >120 cancer image collections according to the FAIR principles and is designed to be used with cloud ML services. Here, we explore its potential to facilitate reproducibility in CompPath research.

methodsUsing the IDC, we implemented two experiments in which a representative ML-based method for classifying lung tumor tissue was trained and/or evaluated on different datasets. To assess reproducibility, the experiments were run multiple times with separate but identically configured instances of common ML services.

resultsThe results of different runs of the same experiment were reproducible to a large extent. However, we observed occasional, small variations in AUC values, indicating a practical limit to reproducibility.

conclusionsWe conclude that the IDC facilitates approaching the reproducibility limit of CompPath research (i) by enabling researchers to reuse exactly the same datasets and (ii) by integrating with cloud ML services so that experiments can be run in identically configured computing environments.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsSoftwareCloud ComputingDiagnostic ImagingHumansReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceCloud computingComputational pathologyFAIRMachine learningReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID37832430
PMCPMC10841477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.