Literature DB >> 31054503

Sensitivity analysis in digital pathology: Handling large number of parameters with compute expensive workflows.

Jeremias Gomes1, Willian Barreiros1, Tahsin Kurc2, Alba C M A Melo1, Jun Kong3, Joel H Saltz4, George Teodoro5.   

Abstract

Digital pathology imaging enables valuable quantitative characterizations of tissue state at the sub-cellular level. While there is a growing set of methods for analysis of whole slide tissue images, many of them are sensitive to changes in input parameters. Evaluating how analysis results are affected by variations in input parameters is important for the development of robust methods. Executing algorithm sensitivity analyses by systematically varying input parameters is an expensive task because a single evaluation run with a moderate number of tissue images may take hours or days. Our work investigates the use of Surrogate Models (SMs) along with parallel execution to speed up parameter sensitivity analysis (SA). This approach significantly reduces the SA cost, because the SM execution is inexpensive. The evaluation of several SM strategies with two image segmentation workflows demonstrates that a SA study with SMs attains results close to a SA with real application runs (mean absolute error lower than 0.022), while the SM accelerates the SA execution by 51 × . We also show that, although the number of parameters in the example workflows is high, most of the uncertainty can be associated with a few parameters. In order to identify the impact of variations in segmentation results to downstream analyses, we carried out a survival analysis with 387 Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma cases. This analysis was repeated using 3 values for the most significant parameters identified by the SA for the two segmentation algorithms; about 600 million cell nuclei were segmented per run. The results show that significance of the survival correlations of patient groups, assessed by a logrank test, are strongly affected by the segmentation parameter changes. This indicates that sensitivity analysis is an important tool for evaluating the stability of conclusions from image analyses.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Microscopy; Sensitivity analysis; Surrogate models; Survival analysis; Uncertainty propagation; Whole Slide Image Analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31054503      PMCID: PMC7363453          DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Comput Biol Med        ISSN: 0010-4825            Impact factor:   4.589


  25 in total

1.  Computation of semantic similarity within an ontology of breast pathology to assist inter-observer consensus.

Authors:  Olivier Steichen; Christel Daniel-Le Bozec; Maxime Thieu; Eric Zapletal; Marie-Christine Jaulent
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2005-09-27       Impact factor: 4.589

2.  Parametric sensitivity analysis applied to a specific one-dimensional internal bone remodelling problem.

Authors:  S Ramtani
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2006-12-20       Impact factor: 4.589

3.  The tumor microenvironment strongly impacts master transcriptional regulators and gene expression class of glioblastoma.

Authors:  Lee A D Cooper; David A Gutman; Candace Chisolm; Christina Appin; Jun Kong; Yuan Rong; Tahsin Kurc; Erwin G Van Meir; Joel H Saltz; Carlos S Moreno; Daniel J Brat
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 4.307

4.  MORPHOLOGICAL SIGNATURES AND GENOMIC CORRELATES IN GLIOBLASTOMA.

Authors:  Lee A D Cooper; Jun Kong; Fusheng Wang; Tahsin Kurc; Carlos S Moreno; Daniel J Brat; Joel H Saltz
Journal:  Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging       Date:  2011-03-30

5.  Region Templates: Data Representation and Management for High-Throughput Image Analysis.

Authors:  George Teodoro; Tony Pan; Tahsin Kurc; Jun Kong; Lee Cooper; Scott Klasky; Joel Saltz
Journal:  Parallel Comput       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 0.986

6.  Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer.

Authors:  Mitko Veta; Robert Kornegoor; André Huisman; Anoek H J Verschuur-Maes; Max A Viergever; Josien P W Pluim; Paul J van Diest
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Integrated morphologic analysis for the identification and characterization of disease subtypes.

Authors:  Lee A D Cooper; Jun Kong; David A Gutman; Fusheng Wang; Jingjing Gao; Christina Appin; Sharath Cholleti; Tony Pan; Ashish Sharma; Lisa Scarpace; Tom Mikkelsen; Tahsin Kurc; Carlos S Moreno; Daniel J Brat; Joel H Saltz
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 8.  Pathology imaging informatics for quantitative analysis of whole-slide images.

Authors:  Sonal Kothari; John H Phan; Todd H Stokes; May D Wang
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Image analysis-derived metrics of histomorphological complexity predicts prognosis and treatment response in stage II-III colon cancer.

Authors:  Artur Mezheyeuski; Ina Hrynchyk; Mia Karlberg; Anna Portyanko; Lars Egevad; Peter Ragnhammar; David Edler; Bengt Glimelius; Arne Östman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Predicting cancer outcomes from histology and genomics using convolutional networks.

Authors:  Pooya Mobadersany; Safoora Yousefi; Mohamed Amgad; David A Gutman; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; José E Velázquez Vega; Daniel J Brat; Lee A D Cooper
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.