OBJECTIVE: To automatically segment cell nuclei in histology images of bladder and skin tissue for karyometric analysis. STUDY DESIGN: The 4 main steps in the program were as follows: median filtering and thresholding, segmentation, categorizing and cusp correction. This robust segmentation technique used properties of the image histogram to optimally select a threshold and create closed 4-way chain code nuclear segmentations. Each cell nucleus segmentation was treated as an individual object of which the properties of segmentation quality were used for criteria to classify each nucleus as: throw away, salvageable or good. An erosion/dilation procedure and rethresholding were performed on salvageable nuclei to correct cusps. RESULTS: Ten bladder histology images were segmented both by hand and using this automatic segmentation algorithm. The automatic segmentation resulted in a sensitivity of 76.4%, defined as the percentage of hand-segmented nuclei that were automatically segmented with good quality. The median proportional difference between hand and automatic segmentations over 42 nuclei each with 95 features used in karyometric analysis was 1.6%. The same procedure was performed on 10 skin histology images with a sensitivity of 83.0% and median proportional difference of 2.6%. CONCLUSION: The close agreement in karyometric features with hand segmentation shows that automated segmentation can be used for analysis of bladder and skin histology images.
OBJECTIVE: To automatically segment cell nuclei in histology images of bladder and skin tissue for karyometric analysis. STUDY DESIGN: The 4 main steps in the program were as follows: median filtering and thresholding, segmentation, categorizing and cusp correction. This robust segmentation technique used properties of the image histogram to optimally select a threshold and create closed 4-way chain code nuclear segmentations. Each cell nucleus segmentation was treated as an individual object of which the properties of segmentation quality were used for criteria to classify each nucleus as: throw away, salvageable or good. An erosion/dilation procedure and rethresholding were performed on salvageable nuclei to correct cusps. RESULTS: Ten bladder histology images were segmented both by hand and using this automatic segmentation algorithm. The automatic segmentation resulted in a sensitivity of 76.4%, defined as the percentage of hand-segmented nuclei that were automatically segmented with good quality. The median proportional difference between hand and automatic segmentations over 42 nuclei each with 95 features used in karyometric analysis was 1.6%. The same procedure was performed on 10 skin histology images with a sensitivity of 83.0% and median proportional difference of 2.6%. CONCLUSION: The close agreement in karyometric features with hand segmentation shows that automated segmentation can be used for analysis of bladder and skin histology images.
Authors: James Ranger-Moore; Peter H Bartels; Paul Bozzo; Janine Einspahr; Yun Liu; Kathylynn Saboda; David S Alberts Journal: Anal Quant Cytol Histol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 0.302
Authors: R van Velthoven; M Petein; W Oosterlinck; T De Wilde; J Mattelaer; M Hardeman; R Kiss; C Decaestecker Journal: J Urol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Rodolfo Montironi; Marina Scarpelli; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Peter W Hamilton; Deborah Thompson; James Ranger-Moore; David G Bostwick; Peter H Bartels Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Evan S Glazer; Peter H Bartels; Anil R Prasad; Michael L Yozwiak; Hubert G Bartels; Janine G Einspahr; David S Alberts; Robert S Krouse Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-06-02
Authors: Kaustav Nandy; Prabhakar R Gudla; Ryan Amundsen; Karen J Meaburn; Tom Misteli; Stephen J Lockett Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Gustavo C Rodriguez; James Kauderer; Jessica Hunn; Larry G Thaete; William G Watkin; Samantha Russell; Michael Yozwiak; Jack Basil; Jean Hurteau; Shashikant Lele; Susan C Modesitt; Oliver Zivanovic; Hao Helen Zhang; Peter H Bartels; David S Alberts Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-04-23
Authors: Jenna L Mueller; Zachary T Harmany; Jeffrey K Mito; Stephanie A Kennedy; Yongbaek Kim; Leslie Dodd; Joseph Geradts; David G Kirsch; Rebecca M Willett; J Quincy Brown; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stephan Wienert; Daniel Heim; Kai Saeger; Albrecht Stenzinger; Michael Beil; Peter Hufnagl; Manfred Dietel; Carsten Denkert; Frederick Klauschen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Famke Aeffner; Mark D Zarella; Nathan Buchbinder; Marilyn M Bui; Matthew R Goodman; Douglas J Hartman; Giovanni M Lujan; Mariam A Molani; Anil V Parwani; Kate Lillard; Oliver C Turner; Venkata N P Vemuri; Ana G Yuil-Valdes; Douglas Bowman Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2019-03-08