| Literature DB >> 27042658 |
Amel Benammar Elgaaied1, Donato Cascio2, Salvatore Bruno2, Maria Cristina Ciaccio2, Marco Cipolla2, Alessandro Fauci2, Rossella Morgante2, Vincenzo Taormina2, Yousr Gorgi3, Raja Marrakchi Triki1, Melika Ben Ahmed4, Hechmi Louzir4, Sadok Yalaoui5, Sfar Imene3, Yassine Issaoui1, Ahmed Abidi1, Myriam Ammar1, Walid Bedhiafi1, Oussama Ben Fraj1, Rym Bouhaha1, Khouloud Hamdi1, Koudhi Soumaya1, Bilel Neili1, Gati Asma1, Mariano Lucchese6, Maria Catanzaro6, Vincenza Barbara6, Ignazio Brusca7, Maria Fregapane7, Gaetano Amato8, Giuseppe Friscia9, Trai Neila3, Souayeh Turkia3, Haouami Youssra3, Raja Rekik4, Hayet Bouokez5, Maria Vasile Simone10, Francesco Fauci10, Giuseppe Raso2.
Abstract
Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are significant biomarkers in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases in humans, done by mean of Indirect ImmunoFluorescence (IIF) method, and performed by analyzing patterns and fluorescence intensity. This paper introduces the AIDA Project (autoimmunity: diagnosis assisted by computer) developed in the framework of an Italy-Tunisia cross-border cooperation and its preliminary results. A database of interpreted IIF images is being collected through the exchange of images and double reporting and a Gold Standard database, containing around 1000 double reported images, has been settled. The Gold Standard database is used for optimization of a CAD (Computer Aided Detection) solution and for the assessment of its added value, in order to be applied along with an Immunologist as a second Reader in detection of autoantibodies. This CAD system is able to identify on IIF images the fluorescence intensity and the fluorescence pattern. Preliminary results show that CAD, used as second Reader, appeared to perform better than Junior Immunologists and hence may significantly improve their efficacy; compared with two Junior Immunologists, the CAD system showed higher Intensity Accuracy (85,5% versus 66,0% and 66,0%), higher Patterns Accuracy (79,3% versus 48,0% and 66,2%), and higher Mean Class Accuracy (79,4% versus 56,7% and 64.2%).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27042658 PMCID: PMC4794569 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2073076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Number of sera and images.
| Number of patients | Results of IIF test | Number of selected images | Total images |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5762 | 4316 | 12947 | 14393 |
Figure 1Distribution of IIF patterns in the AIDA database (number of images 14393).
Figure 2Examples of negative and positive mitosis ((a) and (b), resp.).
Figure 3IIF images with different staining patterns (from left to right: Homogeneous, Fine Speckled, Coarse Speckled, Nucleolar, Centromere, Nuclear Dots, and Nuclear Pore Complex).
Figure 4CyclopusCAD Immuno working flow: the system aims to reproduce the operations flow made by Immunologist and described in Section 3.5, by making a classification of fluorescence only for nonnegative images, and by operating a patterns classification and a mitosis classification; it will then be using the results of these classifications to provide a final output.
Figure 5Pipeline of patterns classification method: the generic new image is simultaneously processed by seven processes, thus obtaining seven separate outputs showing how the cell resembles each of the 7 classes analyzed in this work; as an example, out Ho. represents the degree of similarity between the unknown image and the Homogeneous images.
Level of concordance between two Senior Immunologist Readers of 589 wells.
| Senior 1 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Homog. | Fine S. | Coarse S. | Nucleol. | Centrom. | Dot | TOT | ||
| Senior 2 | Negative |
| 6 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 141 | ||
| Homog. | 5 |
| 15 | 3 | 1 | 134 | |||
| Fine S. | 26 | 22 |
| 24 | 1 | 122 | |||
| Coarse S. | 23 | 4 | 20 |
| 114 | ||||
| Nucleol. | 1 |
| 39 | ||||||
| Centrom. |
| 31 | |||||||
| Dot | 1 |
| 8 | ||||||
| TOT | 172 | 142 | 94 | 99 | 44 | 31 | 7 |
| |
Figure 6Distribution of IIF patterns in the Gold Standard database (number of images 1006 and number of wells 302).
Number of IIF images in AIDA database: with one or two reports among which a Gold Standard sample with concordant reporting was extracted.
| Images | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| With 1 report | With 2 reports |
| |
| Positive | 12947 | 6274 | 906 |
| Negative | 1446 | 700 | 100 |
| Total |
| 6974 | 1006 |
Percent of reporting concordance of Junior Immunologist versus Senior or Junior Immunologist.
| Concordance% of Juniors versus Seniors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Junior Readers | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Number of wells | 117 | 169 | 174 | 141 |
| Concordance | 37,6% | 53,2% | 42,5% | 72,3% |
| Mean | 45,8% | 57,4% | ||
|
| ||||
| Concordance% of Junior versus Junior | ||||
| Juniors pair | 1 versus 2 | 3 versus 4 | ||
|
| ||||
| Number of wells | 265 | 219 | ||
| Concordance | 46,8% | 68,5% | ||
Comparison of CAD and Junior reporting using Gold Standard images as reference.
| Readers | Intensity | Patterns | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Accuracy | Mean accuracy | Cohen's | |
| Junior 1 | 66,0% | 48,0% | 56,7% | 0,36 |
| Junior 2 | 66,0% | 66,2% | 64,2% | 0,58 |
| CAD |
|
|
|
|
Accuracy and mean accuracy of CAD compared to Gold Standard used as reference.
| CAD | Homog. | Fine S. | Coarse S. | Nucleol. | Centrom. | Dot | Other | ACC | MAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Homog. |
| 9,5% | 6,8% | 2,7% | 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% |
|
|
| Fine S. | 6,5% |
| 16,1% | 19,4% | 3,2% | 0,0% | 0,0% | ||
| Coarse S. | 0,0% | 9,6% |
| 3,8% | 3,8% | 1,9% | 0,0% | ||
| Nucleol. | 3,3% | 10,0% | 0,0% |
| 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% | ||
| Centrom. | 3,4% | 3,4% | 0,0% | 3,4% |
| 0,0% | 0,0% | ||
| Dot | 0,0% | 0,0% | 16,7 | 0,0% | 0,0% |
| 0,0% | ||
| Other | 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% | 0,0% |
|
Accuracy of Junior reporting with the support of the CAD using Gold Standard images as reference.
| Readers | Intensity | Patterns | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Accuracy | Mean accuracy | Cohen's | |
| Junior 1 | 76,0% | 69,5% | 73,9% | 0,61 |
| Junior 2 | 66,0% | 68,2% | 66,3% | 0,60 |