| Literature DB >> 12659649 |
N M Jomha1, P C Anoop, Janet A W Elliott, K Bagnall, L E McGann.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The identification of live cells using membrane integrity dyes has become a frequently used technique, especially with articular cartilage and chondrocytes in situ where tissue slices are used to assess cell recovery as a function of location. The development of a reproducible computerised method of cell evaluation would eliminate many variables associated with manual counting and significantly reduce the amount of time required to evaluate experimental results.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2003 PMID: 12659649 PMCID: PMC153524 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Figure 1Computer generated histograms from 3 different images after staining with EB and Syto 13. The red line characterizes the relative pixel intensity of the red pixels. The green line characterizes the relative pixel intensity of the green pixels. The vertical red and green dotted lines indicate the threshold determined by the empirical 85% pixel cutoff determined by the cumulative histograms seen in Figure 2. "# pixels" indicates number of pixels.
Figure 2Computer generated cumulative histograms corresponding to the histograms seen in Figure 1. The red and green dotted lines demarcate the 85th percentile of pixels, which was used as the threshold level for pixel intensity. This threshold intensity, shown in both Figures 1 and 2, was used to differentiate between the background pixels (to the left of the line) and the cell pixels (to the right of the line).
Figure 3Digitised images of the three different cartilage slice sections from which the histograms in Figures 1 and 2 were generated. These images demonstrate what the human evaluators saw when attempting to quantitatively assess the distribution of red and green cells. The white line in the bottom left corner represents 100 μm.
Figure 4Computer generated images after processing by the computer program as a result of the application of the algorithm to the images in Figure 3. Figure 4A shows that the vast majority of cells are intact (green) while Figure 4B shows a mixed combination of intact (green) and disrupted cells (red). Figure 4C shows that most cells are disrupted (red). The white line in the bottom left corner represents 100 μm.
Intra-Rater ICC for all human evaluators and the computer program. There was increased reproducibility, in general, with increased experience. EX3 demonstrated the highest ICC (0.99) while the computer program was perfectly reproducible (ICC = 1.00).
| Evaluator | ICC |
| US1 – unskilled | 0.75 |
| US2 – unskilled | 0.78 |
| US3 – unskilled | 0.67 |
| NV1 – novice | 0.89 |
| NV2 – novice | 0.88 |
| NV3 – novice | 0.91 |
| EX1 – experienced | 0.87 |
| EX2 – experienced | 0.97 |
| EX3 – experienced | 0.99 |
| Computer program | 1.00 |
Inter-Rater ICC within each group and including the computer program. The "ICC with computer program" denotes the ICC when the results from the computer program were included in the results with the human evaluators. The experienced evaluators demonstrated an excellent ICC (0.93) when compared to each other and when the computer program results were included (0.84). The novices also demonstrated a very good correlation (0.85) within their group but there was a further decrease in the ICC when the computer program was included (0.75). The unskilled group had no correlation (0.47 and 0.36).
| ICC without computer program | ICC with computer program | |
| Unskilled | 0.47 | 0.36 |
| Novice | 0.85 | 0.75 |
| Experienced | 0.93 | 0.84 |
ICC with 95% confidence intervals
| ICC | 95% confidence intervals | |
| Unskilled | 0.34 | -0.19–0.71 |
| Novice | 0.71 | 0.34–0.89 |
| Experienced | 0.77 | 0.44–0.92 |