Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39560067›Full record

ArticleVeterinary pathology2025

Nuclear pleomorphism in canine cutaneous mast cell tumors: Comparison of reproducibility and prognostic relevance between estimates, manual morphometry, and algorithmic morphometry.

Andreas Haghofer, Eda Parlak, Alexander Bartel, Taryn A Donovan, Charles-Antoine Assenmacher, Pompei Bolfa, Michael J Dark, Andrea Fuchs-Baumgartinger, Andrea Klang, Kathrin Jäger and 11 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Artificial intelligence predictsVeterinary pathology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

21 authors.

Andreas HaghoferUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Hagenberg, Austria.
Eda ParlakUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alexander BartelFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1280-6138
Taryn A DonovanThe Schwarzman Animal Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-5740-9550
Charles-Antoine AssenmacherUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.ORCID 0000-0003-0073-2730
Pompei BolfaRoss University School of Veterinary Medicine, Basseterre, St. Kitts.ORCID 0000-0002-2903-1535
Michael J DarkUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-6547-1298
Andrea Fuchs-BaumgartingerUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea KlangUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5352-5757
Kathrin JägerLaboklin GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Kissingen, Germany.
Robert KlopfleischFreie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6308-0568
Sophie MerzIDEXX Vet Med Labor GmbH, Kornwestheim, Germany.
Barbara RichterUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
F Yvonne SchulmanHeska, Loveland, CO.ORCID 0000-0002-7454-8517
Hannah JanoutUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Hagenberg, Austria.
Jonathan GanzTechnische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-1299-8716
Josef ScharingerJohannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria.
Marc AubrevilleTechnische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5294-5247
Stephan M WinklerUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Hagenberg, Austria.
Matti KiupelMichigan State University, Lansing, MI.ORCID 0000-0003-4429-9529
Christof A BertramUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-2402-9997

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Variation in nuclear size and shape is an important criterion of malignancy for many tumor types; however, categorical estimates by pathologists have poor reproducibility. Measurements of nuclear characteristics can improve reproducibility, but current manual methods are time-consuming. The aim of this study was to explore the limitations of estimates and develop alternative morphometric solutions for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCTs). We assessed the following nuclear evaluation methods for accuracy, reproducibility, and prognostic utility: (1) anisokaryosis estimates by 11 pathologists; (2) gold standard manual morphometry of at least 100 nuclei; (3) practicable manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei by 9 pathologists; and (4) automated morphometry using deep learning-based segmentation. The study included 96 ccMCTs with available outcome information. Inter-rater reproducibility of anisokaryosis estimates was low (k = 0.226), whereas it was good (intraclass correlation = 0.654) for practicable morphometry of the standard deviation (SD) of nuclear size. As compared with gold standard manual morphometry (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.839, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.701-0.977), the prognostic value (tumor-specific survival) of SDs of nuclear area for practicable manual morphometry and automated morphometry were high with an AUC of 0.868 (95% CI = 0.737-0.991) and 0.943 (95% CI = 0.889-0.996), respectively. This study supports the use of manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei and algorithmic morphometry to overcome the poor reproducibility of estimates. Further studies are needed to validate our findings, determine inter-algorithmic reproducibility and algorithmic robustness, and explore tumor heterogeneity of nuclear features in entire tumor sections.

Indexed as

Cell NucleusDog DiseasesSkin NeoplasmsAlgorithmsAnimalsDogsFemalePrognosisReproducibility of Resultsanisokaryosisartificial intelligencecomputer visiondogkaryomegalymast cell tumormitotic countnuclear pleomorphismtumor heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID39560067
PMCPMC11874577

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.