BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing, i.e., the outsourcing of tasks typically performed by a few experts to a large crowd as an open call, has been shown to be reasonably effective in many cases, like Wikipedia, the Chess match of Kasparov against the world in 1999, and several others. The aim of the present paper is to describe the setup of an experimentation of crowdsourcing techniques applied to the quantification of immunohistochemistry. METHODS: Fourteen Images from MIB1-stained breast specimens were first manually counted by a pathologist, then submitted to a crowdsourcing platform through a specifically developed application. 10 positivity evaluations for each image have been collected and summarized using their median. The positivity values have been then compared to the gold standard provided by the pathologist by means of Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Contributors were in total 28, and evaluated 4.64 images each on average. Spearman correlation between gold and crowdsourced positivity percentages is 0.946 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aim of the experiment was to understand how to use crowdsourcing for an image analysis task that is currently time-consuming when done by human experts. Crowdsourced work can be used in various ways, in particular statistically agregating data to reduce identification errors. However, in this preliminary experimentation we just considered the most basic indicator, that is the median positivity percentage, which provided overall good results. This method might be more aimed to research than routine: when a large number of images are in need of ad-hoc evaluation, crowdsourcing may represent a quick answer to the need.
BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing, i.e., the outsourcing of tasks typically performed by a few experts to a large crowd as an open call, has been shown to be reasonably effective in many cases, like Wikipedia, the Chess match of Kasparov against the world in 1999, and several others. The aim of the present paper is to describe the setup of an experimentation of crowdsourcing techniques applied to the quantification of immunohistochemistry. METHODS: Fourteen Images from MIB1-stained breast specimens were first manually counted by a pathologist, then submitted to a crowdsourcing platform through a specifically developed application. 10 positivity evaluations for each image have been collected and summarized using their median. The positivity values have been then compared to the gold standard provided by the pathologist by means of Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Contributors were in total 28, and evaluated 4.64 images each on average. Spearman correlation between gold and crowdsourced positivity percentages is 0.946 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aim of the experiment was to understand how to use crowdsourcing for an image analysis task that is currently time-consuming when done by human experts. Crowdsourced work can be used in various ways, in particular statistically agregating data to reduce identification errors. However, in this preliminary experimentation we just considered the most basic indicator, that is the median positivity percentage, which provided overall good results. This method might be more aimed to research than routine: when a large number of images are in need of ad-hoc evaluation, crowdsourcing may represent a quick answer to the need.
Authors: Tan B Nguyen; Shijun Wang; Vishal Anugu; Natalie Rose; Matthew McKenna; Nicholas Petrick; Joseph E Burns; Ronald M Summers Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Einar Gudlaugsson; Ivar Skaland; Emiel A M Janssen; Rune Smaaland; Zhiming Shao; Anais Malpica; Feja Voorhorst; Jan P A Baak Journal: Histopathology Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: S Fasanella; E Leonardi; C Cantaloni; C Eccher; I Bazzanella; D Aldovini; E Bragantini; L Morelli; L V Cuorvo; A Ferro; F Gasperetti; G Berlanda; P Dalla Palma; M Barbareschi Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Z M A Mohammed; D C McMillan; B Elsberger; J J Going; C Orange; E Mallon; J C Doughty; J Edwards Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: E C Inwald; M Klinkhammer-Schalke; F Hofstädter; F Zeman; M Koller; M Gerstenhauer; O Ortmann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Adam M Sonabend; Brad E Zacharia; Michael B Cloney; Aarón Sonabend; Christopher Showers; Victoria Ebiana; Matthew Nazarian; Kristin R Swanson; Anne Baldock; Henry Brem; Jeffrey N Bruce; William Butler; Daniel P Cahill; Bob Carter; Daniel A Orringer; David W Roberts; Oren Sagher; Nader Sanai; Theodore H Schwartz; Daniel L Silbergeld; Michael B Sisti; Reid C Thompson; Allen E Waziri; Zoher Ghogawala; Guy McKhann Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Humayun Irshad; Eun-Yeong Oh; Daniel Schmolze; Liza M Quintana; Laura Collins; Rulla M Tamimi; Andrew H Beck Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 4.379