Literature DB >> 33197281

Assessment of a computerized quantitative quality control tool for whole slide images of kidney biopsies.

Yijiang Chen1, Jarcy Zee2, Abigail Smith2, Catherine Jayapandian1, Jeffrey Hodgin3, David Howell4, Matthew Palmer5, David Thomas4,6, Clarissa Cassol7,8, Alton B Farris9, Kathryn Perkinson4, Anant Madabhushi1,10, Laura Barisoni4,11, Andrew Janowczyk1,12.   

Abstract

Inconsistencies in the preparation of histology slides and whole-slide images (WSIs) may lead to challenges with subsequent image analysis and machine learning approaches for interrogating the WSI. These variabilities are especially pronounced in multicenter cohorts, where batch effects (i.e. systematic technical artifacts unrelated to biological variability) may introduce biases to machine learning algorithms. To date, manual quality control (QC) has been the de facto standard for dataset curation, but remains highly subjective and is too laborious in light of the increasing scale of tissue slide digitization efforts. This study aimed to evaluate a computer-aided QC pipeline for facilitating a reproducible QC process of WSI datasets. An open source tool, HistoQC, was employed to identify image artifacts and compute quantitative metrics describing visual attributes of WSIs to the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) digital pathology repository. A comparison in inter-reader concordance between HistoQC aided and unaided curation was performed to quantify improvements in curation reproducibility. HistoQC metrics were additionally employed to quantify the presence of batch effects within NEPTUNE WSIs. Of the 1814 WSIs (458 H&E, 470 PAS, 438 silver, 448 trichrome) from n = 512 cases considered in this study, approximately 9% (163) were identified as unsuitable for subsequent computational analysis. The concordance in the identification of these WSIs among computational pathologists rose from moderate (Gwet's AC1 range 0.43 to 0.59 across stains) to excellent (Gwet's AC1 range 0.79 to 0.93 across stains) agreement when aided by HistoQC. Furthermore, statistically significant batch effects (p < 0.001) in the NEPTUNE WSI dataset were discovered. Taken together, our findings strongly suggest that quantitative QC is a necessary step in the curation of digital pathology cohorts.
© 2020 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2020 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NEPTUNE; batch effects; computational pathology; computer vision; digital pathology; inter-reader variability; kidney biopsies; machine learning; quality control; whole-slide image

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33197281      PMCID: PMC8392148          DOI: 10.1002/path.5590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pathol        ISSN: 0022-3417            Impact factor:   7.996


  17 in total

1.  Proteomics Quality Control: Quality Control Software for MaxQuant Results.

Authors:  Chris Bielow; Guido Mastrobuoni; Stefan Kempa
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 4.466

2.  Focus Quality Assessment of High-Throughput Whole Slide Imaging in Digital Pathology.

Authors:  Mahdi S Hosseini; Jasper A Z Brawley-Hayes; Yueyang Zhang; Lyndon Chan; Konstantinos Plataniotis; Savvas Damaskinos
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Technical Note: MRQy - An open-source tool for quality control of MR imaging data.

Authors:  Amir Reza Sadri; Andrew Janowczyk; Ren Zhou; Ruchika Verma; Niha Beig; Jacob Antunes; Anant Madabhushi; Pallavi Tiwari; Satish E Viswanath
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Towards better digital pathology workflows: programming libraries for high-speed sharpness assessment of Whole Slide Images.

Authors:  David Ameisen; Christophe Deroulers; Valérie Perrier; Fatiha Bouhidel; Maxime Battistella; Luc Legrès; Anne Janin; Philippe Bertheau; Jean-Baptiste Yunès
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 2.644

5.  Digital pathology evaluation in the multicenter Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE).

Authors:  Laura Barisoni; Cynthia C Nast; J Charles Jennette; Jeffrey B Hodgin; Andrew M Herzenberg; Kevin V Lemley; Catherine M Conway; Jeffrey B Kopp; Matthias Kretzler; Christa Lienczewski; Carmen Avila-Casado; Serena Bagnasco; Sanjeev Sethi; John Tomaszewski; Adil H Gasim; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  Quality control and quality assurance in genotypic data for genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Cathy C Laurie; Kimberly F Doheny; Daniel B Mirel; Elizabeth W Pugh; Laura J Bierut; Tushar Bhangale; Frederick Boehm; Neil E Caporaso; Marilyn C Cornelis; Howard J Edenberg; Stacy B Gabriel; Emily L Harris; Frank B Hu; Kevin B Jacobs; Peter Kraft; Maria Teresa Landi; Thomas Lumley; Teri A Manolio; Caitlin McHugh; Ian Painter; Justin Paschall; John P Rice; Kenneth M Rice; Xiuwen Zheng; Bruce S Weir
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  Reproducibility and Feasibility of Strategies for Morphologic Assessment of Renal Biopsies Using the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network Digital Pathology Scoring System.

Authors:  Jarcy Zee; Jeffrey B Hodgin; Laura H Mariani; Joseph P Gaut; Matthew B Palmer; Serena M Bagnasco; Avi Z Rosenberg; Stephen M Hewitt; Lawrence B Holzman; Brenda W Gillespie; Laura Barisoni
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 8.  Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: Challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Anant Madabhushi; George Lee
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 8.545

9.  MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report.

Authors:  Philip Ewels; Måns Magnusson; Sverker Lundin; Max Käller
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 6.937

10.  Digital pathology imaging as a novel platform for standardization and globalization of quantitative nephropathology.

Authors:  Laura Barisoni; Charlotte Gimpel; Renate Kain; Arvydas Laurinavicius; Gloria Bueno; Caihong Zeng; Zhihong Liu; Franz Schaefer; Matthias Kretzler; Lawrence B Holzman; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2017-02-18
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.

Authors:  Matthew G Hanna; Orly Ardon; Victor E Reuter; Sahussapont Joseph Sirintrapun; Christine England; David S Klimstra; Meera R Hameed
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 2.  The fibrogenic niche in kidney fibrosis: components and mechanisms.

Authors:  Li Li; Haiyan Fu; Youhua Liu
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 42.439

3.  MMO-Net (Multi-Magnification Organ Network): A use case for Organ Identification using Multiple Magnifications in Preclinical Pathology Studies.

Authors:  Citlalli Gámez Serna; Fernando Romero-Palomo; Filippo Arcadu; Jürgen Funk; Vanessa Schumacher; Andrew Janowczyk
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2022-07-19

4.  Assessment of glomerular morphological patterns by deep learning algorithms.

Authors:  Zoran V Popovic; Stefan Porubsky; Cleo-Aron Weis; Jan Niklas Bindzus; Jonas Voigt; Marlen Runz; Svetlana Hertjens; Matthias M Gaida
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.902

5.  Automated quality assessment of large digitised histology cohorts by artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Maryam Haghighat; Lisa Browning; Korsuk Sirinukunwattana; Stefano Malacrino; Nasullah Khalid Alham; Richard Colling; Ying Cui; Emad Rakha; Freddie C Hamdy; Clare Verrill; Jens Rittscher
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.