Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993786›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in transplantation2024

Predicting clinical endpoints and visual changes with quality-weighted tissue-based renal histological features.

Ka Ho Tam, Maria F Soares, Jesper Kers, Edward J Sharples, Rutger J Ploeg, Maria Kaisar, Jens Rittscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in transplantation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ka Ho TamInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maria F SoaresDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jesper KersDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Edward J SharplesNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rutger J PloegNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maria KaisarNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jens RittscherInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two common obstacles limiting the performance of data-driven algorithms in digital histopathology classification tasks are the lack of expert annotations and the narrow diversity of datasets. Multi-instance learning (MIL) can address the former challenge for the analysis of whole slide images (WSI), but performance is often inferior to full supervision. We show that the inclusion of weak annotations can significantly enhance the effectiveness of MIL while keeping the approach scalable. An analysis framework was developed to process periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) and Sirius Red (SR) slides of renal biopsies. The workflow segments tissues into coarse tissue classes. Handcrafted and deep features were extracted from these tissues and combined using a soft attention model to predict several slide-level labels: delayed graft function (DGF), acute tubular injury (ATI), and Remuzzi grade components. A tissue segmentation quality metric was also developed to reduce the adverse impact of poorly segmented instances. The soft attention model was trained using 5-fold cross-validation on a mixed dataset and tested on the QUOD dataset containing

Indexed as

Bayesian Neural Network (BNN)computer visiondigital histopathologykidney transplantmulti-instance learning

Identifiers

PMID38993786
PMCPMC11235227

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.