|
 |
| SYMPOSIUM - ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
|
|
| J Pathol Inform 2013,
4:8 |
Mitosis detection in breast cancer histological images An ICPR 2012 contest
Ludovic Roux1, Daniel Racoceanu2, Nicolas Loménie3, Maria Kulikova4, Humayun Irshad1, Jacques Klossa5, Frédérique Capron6, Catherine Genestie6, Gilles Le Naour6, Metin N Gurcan7
1 University Joseph Fourier, IPAL Laboratory, Grenoble, France
2 University Pierre and Marie Curie, IPAL Laboratory, Paris, France
3 University Paris Descartes, Paris, France
4 CNRS, IPAL Laboratory, France
5 TRIBVN, Châtillon, France
6 Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
7 Department of Biomedical and Informatics, College of Medicine, CIALAB, The Ohio State University, USA
| Date of Submission | 06-Mar-2013 |
| Date of Acceptance | 13-Mar-2013 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-May-2013 |
Correspondence Address:
Ludovic Roux
University Joseph Fourier, IPAL Laboratory, Grenoble
France
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.112693
 Abstract | | |
Introduction: In the framework of the Cognitive Microscope (MICO) project, we have set up a contest about mitosis detection in images of H and E stained slides of breast cancer for the conference ICPR 2012. Mitotic count is an important parameter for the prognosis of breast cancer. However, mitosis detection in digital histopathology is a challenging problem that needs a deeper study. Indeed, mitosis detection is difficult because mitosis are small objects with a large variety of shapes, and they can thus be easily confused with some other objects or artefacts present in the image. We added a further dimension to the contest by using two different slide scanners having different resolutions and producing red-green-blue (RGB) images, and a multi-spectral microscope producing images in 10 different spectral bands and 17 layers Z-stack. 17 teams participated in the study and the best team achieved a recall rate of 0.7 and precision of 0.89. Context: Several studies on automatic tools to process digitized slides have been reported focusing mainly on nuclei or tubule detection. Mitosis detection is a challenging problem that has not yet been addressed well in the literature. Aims: Mitotic count is an important parameter in breast cancer grading as it gives an evaluation of the aggressiveness of the tumor. However, consistency, reproducibility and agreement on mitotic count for the same slide can vary largely among pathologists. An automatic tool for this task may help for reaching a better consistency, and at the same time reducing the burden of this demanding task for the pathologists. Subjects and Methods: Professor Frιdιrique Capron team of the pathology department at Pitiι-Salpκtriθre Hospital in Paris, France, has selected a set of five slides of breast cancer. The slides are stained with H and E. They have been scanned by three different equipments: Aperio ScanScope XT slide scanner, Hamamatsu NanoZoomer 2.0-HT slide scanner and 10 bands multispectral microscope. The data set is made up of 50 high power fields (HPF) coming from 5 different slides scanned at ×40 magnification. There are 10 HPFs/slide. The pathologist has annotated all the mitotic cells manually. A HPF has a size of 512 μm × 512 μm (that is an area of 0.262 mm 2 , which is a surface equivalent to that of a microscope field diameter of 0.58 mm. These 50 HPFs contain a total of 326 mitotic cells on images of both scanners, and 322 mitotic cells on the multispectral microscope. Results : Up to 129 teams have registered to the contest. However, only 17 teams submitted their detection of mitotic cells. The performance of the best team is very promising, with F-measure as high as 0.78. However, the database we provided is by far too small for a good assessment of reliability and robustness of the proposed algorithms. Conclusions : Mitotic count is an important criterion in the grading of many types of cancers, however, very little research has been made on automatic mitotic cell detection, mainly because of a lack of available data. A main objective of this contest was to propose a database of mitotic cells on digitized breast cancer histopathology slides to initiate works on automated mitotic cell detection. In the future, we would like to extend this database to have much more images from different patients and also for different types of cancers. In addition, mitotic cells should be annotated by several pathologists to reflect the partial agreement among them. Keywords: Automated mitotic cell detection, breast cancer, H and E stained histological slides
How to cite this article:
Roux L, Racoceanu D, Loménie N, Kulikova M, Irshad H, Klossa J, Capron F, Genestie C, Naour GL, Gurcan MN. Mitosis detection in breast cancer histological images An ICPR 2012 contest. J Pathol Inform 2013;4:8 |
How to cite this URL:
Roux L, Racoceanu D, Loménie N, Kulikova M, Irshad H, Klossa J, Capron F, Genestie C, Naour GL, Gurcan MN. Mitosis detection in breast cancer histological images An ICPR 2012 contest. J Pathol Inform [serial online] 2013 [cited 2022 Jan 21];4:8. Available from: https://www.jpathinformatics.org/text.asp?2013/4/1/8/112693 |
| Introduction | |  |
Nottingham grading system [1] is an international grading system for breast cancer recommended by the World Health Organization. It is derived from the assessment of three morphological features on slides stained with H and E: Tubule formation, nuclear pleomorphism, and mitotic count.
Mitotic count is an important parameter in breast cancer grading as it gives an evaluation of the aggressiveness of the tumor. However, consistency, reproducibility and agreement on mitotic count for the same slide can vary largely among pathologists. [2],[3] An automatic tool for this task may help for reaching a better consistency, and at the same time reducing the burden of this demanding task for pathologists.
Detection of mitotic cells is a very challenging task because they are small objects with a large variety of shape configurations and a low frequency of appearance. Some examples of ground truth mitotic cells are shown in [Figure 1]. The objective of the contest is to encourage works on the detection of mitosis on H and E stained histological images of the breast cancers.
Several studies on automatic tools to process digitized slides have been reported [4] focusing mainly on nuclei or tubule detection. Mitosis detection is a challenging problem that has not yet been addressed well in the literature. Only few works concern detection of mitosis. Beliλn et al., [5] counted mitoses on Feulgen stained breast cancer sections. Recently Liu et al., [6] and Huh et al., [7] proposed mitosis detection in time-lapse phase contrast microscopy image sequences of stem cell populations and Schlachter et al. [8] performed detection of mitoses in fluorescence staining of colorectal cancer. Roullier et al., [9] propose detection of mitotic cells on breast cancer slides with an immunohistochemical staining that highlights specifically mitosis.
The only work concerning mitosis detection on H and E stained slides is by Malon et al., [10] who propose the use of convolutional neural networks (CNN). Sertel et al., [11] presented a method for the detection of mitosis and karyorrhexis cells (dying cells) without distinction, but for breast cancer grading, only mitotic cells must be counted.
| Subjects and Methods | | |
Dataset
Professor Frédérique Capron's team of the pathology department at Pitié-Salpκtriθre Hospital in Paris, France, has provided a set of five slides of breast cancer. The slides are stained with H and E. They have been scanned by three different equipments:
- Aperio ScanScope XT slide scanner (scanner A);
- Hamamatsu NanoZoomer 2.0-HT slide scanner (scanner H);
- And 10 bands multispectral microscope (microscope M). The spectral bands are all in the visible spectrum. In addition, for each spectral band, the digitization has been performed at 17 different focus planes (17 layers Z-stack), each consecutive planes being separated from each other by 500 nm.
Ground Truth
The data set is made up of 50 high power fields (HPF) coming from 5 different slides scanned at ×40 magnification. There are 10 HPFs per slide. The pathologist has annotated all the mitotic cells manually. She made the annotations in each selected HPF on the images generated by the scanner A, the scanner H and the multispectral microscope M.
A HPF has a size of 512 μm × 512 μm (that is an area of 0.262 mm 2 ), which is a surface equivalent to that of a microscope field diameter of 0.58 mm. These 50 HPFs contain a total of 326 mitotic cells on images of both scanners, and 322 mitotic cells on the microscope M.
[Table 1] gives the number of mitotic cells in the training data set and in the evaluation data set. There are more mitotic cells on the scanner images as compared to the microscope M images. This discrepancy has its origin in the smaller size of multispectral images as compared to the scanner images. Four multispectral images are needed to cover almost the entire surface of a single scanner HPF. However, small gaps remain between the four multispectral images and the same area of a scanner HPF [Figure 2]. As a result, few mitotic cells visible on the border of scanner HPFs are missing on the multispectral images. | Figure 2: Location of quarters a, b, c and d of multispectral microscope in scanner image
Click here to view |
 | Table 1: Number of HPFs and mitotic cells in training and evaluation data sets
Click here to view |
Resolution of Scanners and Microscope
Scanner A has a resolution of 0.2456 μm/pixel. Scanner H has a slightly better resolution of 0.2273 μm (horizontal) and 0.22753 μm (vertical) per pixel. Note that a pixel of scanner H is not exactly a square. At last, multispectral microscope M has the best resolution of 0.185 μm per pixel. [Table 2] shows the resolutions of the different scanners and the microscope. For example, a mitosis having an area of 50 μm 2 will cover about 830 pixels of the image produced by scanner A, about 965 pixels of the image produced by scanner H, and about 1460 pixels of the image produced by multispectral microscope M. | Table 2: Resolution of the scanners A and H and the multispectral microscope M
Click here to view |
For each slide, there is one RGB image produced by scanner A, one RGB image produced by scanner H, and 170 grey scale images for the multispectral microscope M (10 spectral bands and 17 layers Z-stack for each spectral band).
Multispectral Microscope M
The camera attached on top of the microscope generates images of 1360 × 1360 pixels. However, to cover an area of 512 μm × 512 μm, 2767 × 2767 pixels are needed. Therefore, we will use four images to cover the same area as the two scanners. However, these four images do not cover completely the 512 μm × 512 μm area, 47 pixels are missing in width and in height to cover fully the area.
Each image, covering a quarter of a scanner image, is labeled a, b, c or d depending on its position in the scanner image. [Figure 2] shows the location of each quarter a, b, c, d. As the quarters do not cover completely the 512 μm × 512 μm area, compared to the scanner images, there is a small gap on the borders, and also a small gap between quarters a, b, c and d.
[Figure 3] shows the spectral coverage of each of the 10 spectral bands of the microscope M. All the bands are in the visible spectrum. | Figure 3: Spectral bands of the multispectral microscope and examples for each band
Click here to view |
Evaluation Metrics
The main goal of the contest is to be able to give the mitotic count on each slide. A segmented mitosis would be counted as correctly detected if its centroid is localized within a range of 8 μm of the centroid of ground truth mitosis. The evaluation metrics are defined as follows:
- TP = number of true positives, that is the number of candidate mitotic cells that are ground truth mitotic cells.
- FP = number of false positives, that is the number of candidate mitotic cells that are not ground truth mitotic cells.
- FN = number of false negatives, that is the number of ground truth mitotic cells that have not been detected.
- Recall (sensitivity) =
 - Precision (positive predicitive value) =
| Results | | |
The ground truth and images of training data set have been provided at the beginning of the contest on November 2011. At the end of the contest, in August 2012, contestants received images of the evaluation data set, but not the corresponding ground truth. All the rankings are made according to F-measure.
Up to 129 teams have registered to the contest. They downloaded and worked on the training data set to prepare and tune their algorithms for detection of mitotic cells. At the end of the contest, they received the evaluation data set. However, only 17 teams submitted their detection of mitotic cells. Team names are listed in [Table 3]. Detection results and rankings are given in [Table 4] for scanner A, [Table 5] for scanner H and [Table 6] for microscope M.
Overall, detection of mitotic cells is better on scanner A than on scanner H. Detection results on multispectral microscope are very poor as compared to scanners A and H. This is shown by the results of NEC, Shiraz University of Technology (SUTECH) and Image and Pervasive Access Lab (IPAL) teams who had better detection on scanner A respectively with 59, 72 and 74 true positives, whereas these figures are respectively 44, 61 and 71 for scanner H. However, NEC and SUTECH had more false positives on scanner A (respectively 20 and 31) than on scanner H (respectively 14 and 13). Although, IPAL had much more false positives on scanner H (56) than on scanner A (32). A few examples of false positives and false negatives are presented in [Figure 4] and [Figure 5]. | Figure 4: Some examples of false positives. The false mitotic cell objects are located in the center of each image
Click here to view |
 | Figure 5: Some examples of false negatives. The not detected mitotic cell objects are located in the center or each image
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Detection results and rankings for scanner Aperio (rankings are according to F-measure)
Click here to view |
 | Table 5: Detection results and rankings for scanner Hamamatsu (rankings are according to F-measure)
Click here to view |
 | Table 6: Detection results and rankings for multispectral microscope (rankings are according to F-measure)
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
The general processing method developed by most teams for detection of mitotic cells is globally made up of four steps.
- Detection of candidate blobs or seed points using thresholding and mathematical morphology.
- Blob segmentation with level-set or active contours.
- Computation of features on segmented blobs (radiometry, morphology, texture).
- Classification of candidate blobs as mitosis or non-mitosis object.
For Isik University team, the classifier used was adaboost classifier while for IPAL team, it was a decision tree. IPAL team also used a selection of color channels of different color models (RGB, hue-saturation-value (HSV), Lab, Luv) and computed the features on the selected channels.
NEC team is the only one team who applied their method on all the provided images (both scanners and the multispectral microscope). They used a CNN as classifier. Their method is efficient as they ranked high for both scanners, and first for the multispectral microscope.
Warwick team introduced a tumor segmentation to discard non-tumor areas from the images as these areas are full of lymphoid, inflammatory or apoptotic cells, which are not relevant for cancer grading. Hence mitosis detection is performed only on tumor areas. They made statistical modeling of mitotic cells from their grey level intensities. To match the distribution of grey level intensities of each class (mitotic cell/background), they used a Gamma distribution for mitotic cells and a Gaussian distribution for background.
Istituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull'Intelligenza Artificiale (IDSIA) team approach relies on a single step processing: The use of a CNN to compute a map of probabilities of mitosis over the whole image. Their CNN has been trained with the ground truth mitosis provided in the training data set. Their approach proved to be very efficient as they clearly had the best F-measure on scanner images, and a very low number of false positives as compared to their immediate competitors.
An improved version of this successful challenge will involve a much larger number of mitosis, images from more slides and multiple pathologists' collaborative/cooperative annotations. Besides, some slides will be dedicated to test only without any HPF of these slides included in the training data set.
| Conclusion | | |
Mitotic count is an important criterion in the grading of many types of cancers; however, very little research has been made on automatic mitotic cell detection, mainly because of a lack of available data. A main objective of this contest was to propose a database of mitotic cells on digitized breast cancer histopathology slides to initiate works on automated mitotic cell detection.
Up to 129 teams have registered to the contest and downloaded the training data set. In the end, 17 of them submitted their detection results on the evaluation data set. The performance of the best team is very promising, with F-measure as high as 0.78. However, the database we provided is by far too small for a good assessment of reliability and robustness of the proposed algorithms.
In the future, we would like to extend this database to have much more images from different patients and also for different types of cancers. In addition, mitotic cells should be annotated by several pathologists to reflect the partial agreement among them.
| Acknowledgments | | |
This work was supported in part by the French National Research Agency ANR, project MICO under reference ANR-10-TECS-015.
| References | | |
| 1. | Elston C, Ellis I. Pathological pronostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1997;28:135-40. 
|
| 2. | Gurcan MN, Boucheron LE, Can A, Madabhushi A, Rajpoot NM, Yener B. Histopathological image analysis: A review. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2009;2:147-71.
|
| 3. | Beliën JA, Baak JP, van Diest PJ, van Ginkel AH. Counting mitoses by image processing in Feulgen stained breast cancer sections: The influence of resolution. Cytometry 1997;28:135-40.
|
| 4. | Liu AA, Li K, Kanade T. A semi-Markov model for mitosis segmentation in time-lapse phase contrast microscopy image sequences of stem cell populations. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2012;31:359-69.
|
| 5. | Huh S, Ker DF, Bise R, Chen M, Kanade T. Automated mitosis detection of stem cell populations in phase-contrast microscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2011;30:586-96.
|
| 6. | Schlachter M, Reisert M, Herz C, Schlürmann F, Lassmann S, Werner M, et al. Harmonic filters for 3D multichannel data: Rotation invariant detection of mitoses in colorectal cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:1485-95.
|
| 7. | Roullier V, Lézoray O, Ta VT, Elmoataz A. Multi-resolution graph-based analysis of histopathological whole slide images: Application to mitotic cell extraction and visualization. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2011;35:603-15.
|
| 8. | Malon C, Miller M, Burger HC, Cosatto E, Graf HP. Identifying histological elements with convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Soft Computing as Transdisciplinary Science and Technology; 2008 Oct. Cergy-Pontoise, France.
|
| 9. | Sertel O, Catalyurek UV, Shimada H, Gurcan MN. Computer-aided prognosis of neuroblastoma: Detection of mitosis and karyorrhexis cells in digitized histological images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;2009:1433-6.
|
| 10. | Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, Russo J, et al. Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: Reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 2005;18:1067-78.
|
| 11. | Malon C, Brachtel E, Cosatto E, Graf HP, Kurata A, Kuroda M, et al. Mitotic figure recognition: Agreement among pathologists and computerized detector. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2012;35:97-100.
|
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Novel architecture with selected feature vector for effective classification of mitotic and non-mitotic cells in breast cancer histology images |
|
| Mobeen Ur Rehman, Suhail Akhtar, Muhammad Zakwan, Muhammad Habib Mahmood | | Biomedical Signal Processing and Control. 2022; 71: 103212 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Self supervised contrastive learning for digital histopathology |
|
| Ozan Ciga, Tony Xu, Anne Louise Martel | | Machine Learning with Applications. 2022; 7: 100198 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
An investigation of XGBoost-based algorithm for breast cancer classification |
|
| Xin Yu Liew, Nazia Hameed, Jeremie Clos | | Machine Learning with Applications. 2021; 6: 100154 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Deep computational pathology in breast cancer |
|
| Andrea Duggento, Allegra Conti, Alessandro Mauriello, Maria Guerrisi, Nicola Toschi | | Seminars in Cancer Biology. 2021; 72: 226 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Deep learning powers cancer diagnosis in digital pathology |
|
| Yunjie He, Hong Zhao, Stephen T.C. Wong | | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2021; 88: 101820 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Machine learning techniques for mitoses classification |
|
| Shima Nofallah, Sachin Mehta, Ezgi Mercan, Stevan Knezevich, Caitlin J. May, Donald Weaver, Daniela Witten, Joann G. Elmore, Linda Shapiro | | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2021; 87: 101832 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
A review on image-based approaches for breast cancer detection, segmentation, and classification |
|
| Zahra Rezaei | | Expert Systems with Applications. 2021; 182: 115204 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
An explainable ensemble feedforward method with Gaussian convolutional filter |
|
| Jingchen Li, Haobin Shi, Kao-Shing Hwang | | Knowledge-Based Systems. 2021; 225: 107103 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Mitosis detection techniques in H&E stained breast cancer pathological images: A comprehensive review |
|
| Xipeng Pan, Yinghua Lu, Rushi Lan, Zhenbing Liu, Zujun Qin, Huadeng Wang, Zaiyi Liu | | Computers & Electrical Engineering. 2021; 91: 107038 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
A deep learning approach for mitosis detection: Application in tumor proliferation prediction from whole slide images |
|
| Ramin Nateghi, Habibollah Danyali, Mohammad Sadegh Helfroush | | Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2021; 114: 102048 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Breast cancer intelligent analysis of histopathological data: A systematic review |
|
| Felipe André Zeiser, Cristiano André da Costa, Adriana Vial Roehe, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi, Nuno Miguel Cavalheiro Marques | | Applied Soft Computing. 2021; 113: 107886 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Computational methods for automated mitosis detection in histopathology images: A review |
|
| Tojo Mathew, Jyoti R. Kini, Jeny Rajan | | Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering. 2021; 41(1): 64 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Artificial intelligence applied to breast pathology |
|
| Mustafa Yousif, Paul J. van Diest, Arvydas Laurinavicius, David Rimm, Jeroen van der Laak, Anant Madabhushi, Stuart Schnitt, Liron Pantanowitz | | Virchows Archiv. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
A Comprehensive Analysis of Weakly-Supervised Semantic Segmentation in Different Image Domains |
|
| Lyndon Chan, Mahdi S. Hosseini, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis | | International Journal of Computer Vision. 2021; 129(2): 361 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Searching Images for Consensus |
|
| Hamid R. Tizhoosh, Phedias Diamandis, Clinton J.V. Campbell, Amir Safarpoor, Shivam Kalra, Danial Maleki, Abtin Riasatian, Morteza Babaie | | The American Journal of Pathology. 2021; 191(10): 1702 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer Using Histopathology Images |
|
| R Karthiga, K Narashimhan | | Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021; 1767(1): 012042 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
SmallMitosis: Small Size Mitotic Cells Detection in Breast Histopathology Images |
|
| Tasleem Kausar, Mingjiang Wang, M. Adnan Ashraf, Adeeba Kausar | | IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 905 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
Contextual Prior Constrained Deep Networks for Mitosis Detection With Point Annotations |
|
| Jiangxiao Han, Xinggang Wang, Wenyu Liu | | IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 71954 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
A multi-phase deep CNN based mitosis detection framework for breast cancer histopathological images |
|
| Anabia Sohail, Asifullah Khan, Noorul Wahab, Aneela Zameer, Saranjam Khan | | Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
CAD systems for colorectal cancer from WSI are still not ready for clinical acceptance |
|
| Sara P. Oliveira, Pedro C. Neto, João Fraga, Diana Montezuma, Ana Monteiro, João Monteiro, Liliana Ribeiro, Sofia Gonçalves, Isabel M. Pinto, Jaime S. Cardoso | | Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
A Large-Scale Fully Annotated Low-Cost Microscopy Image Dataset for Deep Learning Framework |
|
| Sumona Biswas, Shovan Barma | | IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience. 2021; 20(4): 507 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Artificial intelligence for solid tumour diagnosis in digital pathology |
|
| Christophe Klein, Qinghe Zeng, Floriane Arbaretaz, Estelle Devêvre, Julien Calderaro, Nicolas Lomenie, Maria Chiara Maiuri | | British Journal of Pharmacology. 2021; 178(21): 4291 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Assessment of mitotic activity in breast cancer: revisited in the digital pathology era |
|
| Asmaa Ibrahim, Ayat Lashen, Michael Toss, Raluca Mihai, Emad Rakha | | Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2021; : jclinpath- | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Different CNN-based Architectures for Detection of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma in Breast Using Histopathology Images |
|
| Isha Gupta, Sheifali Gupta, Swati Singh | | International Journal of Image and Graphics. 2021; 21(05) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
A Two-Phase Mitosis Detection Approach Based on U-Shaped Network |
|
| Wenjing Lu, Qiushi Zhao | | BioMed Research International. 2021; 2021: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Deep Learning in Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis Prediction: A Minireview on Challenges, Recent Trends, and Future Directions |
|
| Ahsan Bin Tufail, Yong-Kui Ma, Mohammed K. A. Kaabar, Francisco Martínez, A. R. Junejo, Inam Ullah, Rahim Khan, Iman Yi Liao | | Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2021; 2021: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Evaluating Cancer-Related Biomarkers Based on Pathological Images: A Systematic Review |
|
| Xiaoliang Xie, Xulin Wang, Yuebin Liang, Jingya Yang, Yan Wu, Li Li, Xin Sun, Pingping Bing, Binsheng He, Geng Tian, Xiaoli Shi | | Frontiers in Oncology. 2021; 11 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
A Review of Computer-Aided Expert Systems for Breast Cancer Diagnosis |
|
| Xin Yu Liew, Nazia Hameed, Jeremie Clos | | Cancers. 2021; 13(11): 2764 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 29 |
Machine Learning Methods for Histopathological Image Analysis: A Review |
|
| Jonathan de Matos, Steve Ataky, Alceu de Souza Britto, Luiz Soares de Oliveira, Alessandro Lameiras Koerich | | Electronics. 2021; 10(5): 562 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 30 |
Artificial Intelligence-Based Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histopathology Images Using Faster R-CNN and Deep CNNs |
|
| Tahir Mahmood, Muhammad Arsalan, Muhammad Owais, Min Beom Lee, Kang Ryoung Park | | Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(3): 749 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 31 |
Objective Diagnosis for Histopathological Images Based on Machine Learning Techniques: Classical Approaches and New Trends |
|
| Naira Elazab, Hassan Soliman, Shaker El-Sappagh, S. M. Riazul Islam, Mohammed Elmogy | | Mathematics. 2020; 8(11): 1863 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 32 |
Value of public challenges for the development of pathology deep learning algorithms |
|
| DouglasJoseph Hartman, JeroenA. W. M. Van Der Laak, MetinN Gurcan, Liron Pantanowitz | | Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2020; 11(1): 7 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 33 |
Deep learning algorithms out-perform veterinary pathologists in detecting the mitotically most active tumor region |
|
| Marc Aubreville, Christof A. Bertram, Christian Marzahl, Corinne Gurtner, Martina Dettwiler, Anja Schmidt, Florian Bartenschlager, Sophie Merz, Marco Fragoso, Olivia Kershaw, Robert Klopfleisch, Andreas Maier | | Scientific Reports. 2020; 10(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 34 |
Class-Agnostic Weighted Normalization of Staining in Histopathology Images Using a Spatially Constrained Mixture Model |
|
| Sobhan Shafiei, Amir Safarpoor, Ahad Jamalizadeh, H. R. Tizhoosh | | IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2020; 39(11): 3355 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 35 |
Accuracy and efficiency of an artificial intelligence tool when counting breast mitoses |
|
| Liron Pantanowitz, Douglas Hartman, Yan Qi, Eun Yoon Cho, Beomseok Suh, Kyunghyun Paeng, Rajiv Dhir, Pamela Michelow, Scott Hazelhurst, Sang Yong Song, Soo Youn Cho | | Diagnostic Pathology. 2020; 15(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 36 |
Hyperspectral and multispectral imaging in digital and computational pathology: a systematic review [Invited] |
|
| Samuel Ortega, Martin Halicek, Himar Fabelo, Gustavo M. Callico, Baowei Fei | | Biomedical Optics Express. 2020; 11(6): 3195 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 37 |
Review of the current state of digital image analysis in breast pathology |
|
| Martin C. Chang, Miralem Mrkonjic | | The Breast Journal. 2020; 26(6): 1208 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 38 |
Predict Ki-67 Positive Cells in H&E-Stained Images Using Deep Learning Independently From IHC-Stained Images |
|
| Yiqing Liu, Xi Li, Aiping Zheng, Xihan Zhu, Shuting Liu, Mengying Hu, Qianjiang Luo, Huina Liao, Mubiao Liu, Yonghong He, Yupeng Chen | | Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. 2020; 7 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 39 |
PartMitosis: A Partially Supervised Deep Learning Framework for Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histopathology Images |
|
| Meriem Sebai, Tianjiang Wang, Saad Ali Al-Fadhli | | IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 45133 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 40 |
MitosisNet: End-to-End Mitotic Cell Detection by Multi-Task Learning |
|
| Md Zahangir Alom, Theus Aspiras, Tarek M. Taha, T.J. Bowen, Vijayan K. Asari | | IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 68695 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 41 |
A Comparative Evaluation of Texture Features for Semantic Segmentation of Breast Histopathological Images |
|
| R. Rashmi, Keerthana Prasad, Chethana Babu K. Udupa, V. Shwetha | | IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 64331 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 42 |
A Comprehensive Review for Breast Histopathology Image Analysis Using Classical and Deep Neural Networks |
|
| Xiaomin Zhou, Chen Li, Md Mamunur Rahaman, Yudong Yao, Shiliang Ai, Changhao Sun, Qian Wang, Yong Zhang, Mo Li, Xiaoyan Li, Tao Jiang, Dan Xue, Shouliang Qi, Yueyang Teng | | IEEE Access. 2020; 8: 90931 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 43 |
A large-scale optical microscopy image dataset of potato tuber for deep learning based plant cell assessment |
|
| Sumona Biswas, Shovan Barma | | Scientific Data. 2020; 7(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 44 |
A completely annotated whole slide image dataset of canine breast cancer to aid human breast cancer research |
|
| Marc Aubreville, Christof A. Bertram, Taryn A. Donovan, Christian Marzahl, Andreas Maier, Robert Klopfleisch | | Scientific Data. 2020; 7(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 45 |
MaskMitosis: a deep learning framework for fully supervised, weakly supervised, and unsupervised mitosis detection in histopathology images |
|
| Meriem Sebai, Xinggang Wang, Tianjiang Wang | | Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing. 2020; 58(7): 1603 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 46 |
Deep learning in digital pathology image analysis: a survey |
|
| Shujian Deng, Xin Zhang, Wen Yan, Eric I-Chao Chang, Yubo Fan, Maode Lai, Yan Xu | | Frontiers of Medicine. 2020; 14(4): 470 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 47 |
Computer-Aided Histopathological Image Analysis Techniques for Automated Nuclear Atypia Scoring of Breast Cancer: a Review |
|
| Asha Das, Madhu S. Nair, S. David Peter | | Journal of Digital Imaging. 2020; 33(5): 1091 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 48 |
A bird’s-eye view of deep learning in bioimage analysis |
|
| Erik Meijering | | Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2020; 18: 2312 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 49 |
Histo-genomics: digital pathology at the forefront of precision medicine |
|
| Ivraym Barsoum, Eriny Tawedrous, Hala Faragalla, George M. Yousef | | Diagnosis. 2019; 6(3): 203 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 50 |
Deep learning based tissue analysis predicts outcome in colorectal cancer |
|
| Dmitrii Bychkov,Nina Linder,Riku Turkki,Stig Nordling,Panu E. Kovanen,Clare Verrill,Margarita Walliander,Mikael Lundin,Caj Haglund,Johan Lundin | | Scientific Reports. 2018; 8(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 51 |
Machine Learning Methods for Histopathological Image Analysis |
|
| Daisuke Komura,Shumpei Ishikawa | | Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2018; 16: 34 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 52 |
DeepMitosis: Mitosis Detection via Deep Detection, Verication and Segmentation Networks |
|
| Chao Li,Xinggang Wang,Wenyu Liu,Longin Jan Latecki | | Medical Image Analysis. 2018; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 53 |
Digital image analysis in breast pathology –from image processing techniques to artificial intelligence |
|
| Stephanie Robertson,Hossein Azizpour,Kevin Smith,Johan Hartman | | Translational Research. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 54 |
Gland segmentation in colon histology images: The glas challenge contest |
|
| Korsuk Sirinukunwattana,Josien P.W. Pluim,Hao Chen,Xiaojuan Qi,Pheng-Ann Heng,Yun Bo Guo,Li Yang Wang,Bogdan J. Matuszewski,Elia Bruni,Urko Sanchez,Anton Böhm,Olaf Ronneberger,Bassem Ben Cheikh,Daniel Racoceanu,Philipp Kainz,Michael Pfeiffer,Martin Urschler,David R.J. Snead,Nasir M. Rajpoot | | Medical Image Analysis. 2017; 35: 489 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 55 |
DCAN: Deep contour-aware networks for object instance segmentation from histology images |
|
| Hao Chen,Xiaojuan Qi,Lequan Yu,Qi Dou,Jing Qin,Pheng-Ann Heng | | Medical Image Analysis. 2017; 36: 135 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 56 |
A deep learning based strategy for identifying and associating mitotic activity with gene expression derived risk categories in estrogen receptor positive breast cancers |
|
| David Romo-Bucheli,Andrew Janowczyk,Hannah Gilmore,Eduardo Romero,Anant Madabhushi | | Cytometry Part A. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 57 |
Efficient Deep Learning Model for Mitosis Detection using Breast Histopathology Images |
|
| Monjoy Saha,Chandan Chakraborty,Daniel Racoceanu | | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 58 |
Deep learning in robotics: a review of recent research |
|
| Harry A. Pierson,Michael S. Gashler | | Advanced Robotics. 2017; 31(16): 821 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 59 |
A Multi-Classifier System for Automatic Mitosis Detection in Breast Histopathology Images Using Deep Belief Networks |
|
| K. Sabeena Beevi,Madhu S. Nair,G. R. Bindu | | IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine. 2017; 5: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 60 |
SlideJ: An ImageJ plugin for automated processing of whole slide images |
|
| Vincenzo Della Mea,Giulia L. Baroni,David Pilutti,Carla Di Loreto,Helmut Ahammer | | PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(7): e0180540 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 61 |
Introduction of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology |
|
| SangYong Song | | Hanyang Medical Reviews. 2017; 37(2): 77 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 62 |
Adaptive Dimensionality Reduction with Semi-Supervision (AdDReSS): Classifying Multi-Attribute Biomedical Data |
|
| George Lee,David Edmundo Romo Bucheli,Anant Madabhushi,Daoqiang Zhang | | PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(7): e0159088 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 63 |
Mitosis Counting in Breast Cancer: Object-Level Interobserver Agreement and Comparison to an Automatic Method |
|
| Mitko Veta,Paul J. van Diest,Mehdi Jiwa,Shaimaa Al-Janabi,Josien P. W. Pluim,Anna Sapino | | PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(8): e0161286 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 64 |
Automated Segmentation of Nuclei in Breast Cancer Histopathology Images |
|
| Maqlin Paramanandam,Michael O’Byrne,Bidisha Ghosh,Joy John Mammen,Marie Therese Manipadam,Robinson Thamburaj,Vikram Pakrashi,Pei-Yi Chu | | PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(9): e0162053 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 65 |
Using Automated Image Analysis Algorithms to Distinguish Normal, Aberrant, and Degenerate Mitotic Figures Induced by Eg5 Inhibition |
|
| Alison L. Bigley,Stephanie K. Klein,Barry Davies,Leigh Williams,Daniel G. Rudmann | | Toxicologic Pathology. 2016; 44(5): 663 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 66 |
Image Montaging for Creating a Virtual Pathology Slide: An Innovative and Economical Tool to Obtain a Whole Slide Image |
|
| Spoorthi Ravi Banavar,Prashanthi Chippagiri,Rohit Pandurangappa,Saileela Annavajjula,Premalatha Bidadi Rajashekaraiah | | Analytical Cellular Pathology. 2016; 2016: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 67 |
Robust Nucleus/Cell Detection and Segmentation in Digital Pathology and Microscopy Images: A Comprehensive Review |
|
| Fuyong Xing,Lin Yang | | IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 2016; 9: 234 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 68 |
Primer for Image Informatics in Personalized Medicine |
|
| Young Hwan Chang,Patrick Foley,Vahid Azimi,Rohan Borkar,Jonathan Lefman | | Procedia Engineering. 2016; 159: 58 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 69 |
Imagining the future of bioimage analysis |
|
| Erik Meijering,Anne E Carpenter,Hanchuan Peng,Fred A Hamprecht,Jean-Christophe Olivo-Marin | | Nature Biotechnology. 2016; 34(12): 1250 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 70 |
A survey on automated cancer diagnosis from histopathology images |
|
| J. Angel Arul Jothi,V. Mary Anita Rajam | | Artificial Intelligence Review. 2016; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 71 |
Quantitative analysis of nuclear shape in oral squamous cell carcinoma is useful for predicting the chemotherapeutic response |
|
| Maki Ogura,Yoichiro Yamamoto,Hitoshi Miyashita,Hiroyuki Kumamoto,Manabu Fukumoto | | Medical Molecular Morphology. 2015; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 72 |
An unsupervised feature learning framework for basal cell carcinoma image analysis |
|
| John Arevalo,Angel Cruz-Roa,Viviana Arias,Eduardo Romero,Fabio A. González | | Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2015; 64(2): 131 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 73 |
Mapping spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment: a new era for digital pathology |
|
| Andreas Heindl,Sidra Nawaz,Yinyin Yuan | | Laboratory Investigation. 2015; 95(4): 377 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 74 |
Beyond immune density: critical role of spatial heterogeneity in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer |
|
| Sidra Nawaz,Andreas Heindl,Konrad Koelble,Yinyin Yuan | | Modern Pathology. 2015; 28(6): 766 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 75 |
Automated Histology Analysis: Opportunities for signal processing |
|
| Michael T McCann,John A. Ozolek,Carlos A. Castro,Bahram Parvin,Jelena Kovacevic | | IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. 2015; 32(1): 78 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 76 |
Blind colour separation of H&E stained histological images by linearly transforming the colour space |
|
| R. CELIS,D. ROMO,E. ROMERO | | Journal of Microscopy. 2015; 260(3): 377 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 77 |
Methods for Nuclei Detection, Segmentation, and Classification in Digital Histopathology: A Review—Current Status and Future Potential |
|
| Humayun Irshad,Antoine Veillard,Ludovic Roux,Daniel Racoceanu | | IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 2014; 7: 97 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 78 |
A Nonlinear Mapping Approach to Stain Normalization in Digital Histopathology Images Using Image-Specific Color Deconvolution |
|
| Adnan Mujahid Khan,Nasir Rajpoot,Darren Treanor,Derek Magee | | IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2014; 61(6): 1729 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 79 |
Breast Cancer Histopathology Image Analysis: A Review |
|
| Mitko Veta,Josien P. W. Pluim,Paul J. van Diest,Max A. Viergever | | IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2014; 61(5): 1400 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 80 |
Deep learning in neural networks: An overview |
|
| Jürgen Schmidhuber | | Neural Networks. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 81 |
Assessment of algorithms for mitosis detection in breast cancer histopathology images |
|
| Mitko Veta,Paul J. van Diest,Stefan M. Willems,Haibo Wang,Anant Madabhushi,Angel Cruz-Roa,Fabio Gonzalez,Anders B.L. Larsen,Jacob S. Vestergaard,Anders B. Dahl,Dan C. Cire?an,Jürgen Schmidhuber,Alessandro Giusti,Luca M. Gambardella,F. Boray Tek,Thomas Walter,Ching-Wei Wang,Satoshi Kondo,Bogdan J. Matuszewski,Frederic Precioso,Violet Snell,Josef Kittler,Teofilo E. de Campos,Adnan M. Khan,Nasir M. Rajpoot,Evdokia Arkoumani,Miangela M. Lacle,Max A. Viergever,Josien P.W. Pluim | | Medical Image Analysis. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 82 |
Exploring the Function of Cell Shape and Size during Mitosis |
|
| Clotilde Cadart,Ewa Zlotek-Zlotkiewicz,Maël Le Berre,Matthieu Piel,Helen K. Matthews | | Developmental Cell. 2014; 29(2): 159 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 83 |
Multispectral Band Selection and Spatial Characterization: Application to Mitosis Detection in Breast Cancer Histopathology |
|
| H. Irshad,A. Gouaillard,L. Roux,D. Racoceanu | | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 84 |
Cell Words: Modelling the Visual Appearance of Cells inHistopathology Images |
|
| Adnan M. Khan,Korsuk Sirinukunwattana,Nasir M. Rajpoot | | Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
