Nassim Bouteldja1, David L Hölscher1, Roman D Bülow1, Ian S D Roberts2, Rosanna Coppo3,4, Peter Boor1,5. 1. Institute of Pathology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 2. Department of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Fondazione Ricerca Molinette, Torino, Italy. 4. Regina Margherita Children's University Hospital, Torino, Italy. 5. Department of Nephrology and Immunology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
Background: Considerable inter- and intra-laboratory stain variability exists in pathology, representing a challenge in development and application of deep learning (DL) approaches. Since tackling all sources of stain variability with manual annotation is not feasible, we here investigated and compared unsupervised DL approaches to reduce the consequences of stain variability in kidney pathology. Methods: We aimed to improve the applicability of a pretrained DL segmentation model to 3 external multi-centric cohorts with large stain variability. In contrast to the traditional approach of training generative adversarial networks (GAN) for stain normalization, we here propose to tackle stain variability by data augmentation. We augment the training data of the pretrained model by the stain variability using CycleGANs and then retrain the model on the stain-augmented dataset. We compared the performance of i/ the unmodified pretrained segmentation model with ii/ CycleGAN-based stain normalization, iii/ a feature-preserving modification to ii/ for improved normalization, and iv/ the proposed stain-augmented model. Results: The proposed stain-augmented model showed highest mean segmentation accuracy in all external cohorts and maintained comparable performance on the training cohort. However, the increase in performance was only marginal compared to the pretrained model. CycleGAN-based stain normalization suffered from encoded imperceptible information into the normalizations that confused the pretrained model and thus resulted in slightly worse performance. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that stain variability can be tackled more effectively by augmenting data by it than by following the commonly used approach of normalizing the stain. However, the applicability of this approach providing only a rather slight performance increase has to be weighted against an additional carbon footprint.
Background: Considerable inter- and intra-laboratory stain variability exists in pathology, representing a challenge in development and application of deep learning (DL) approaches. Since tackling all sources of stain variability with manual annotation is not feasible, we here investigated and compared unsupervised DL approaches to reduce the consequences of stain variability in kidney pathology. Methods: We aimed to improve the applicability of a pretrained DL segmentation model to 3 external multi-centric cohorts with large stain variability. In contrast to the traditional approach of training generative adversarial networks (GAN) for stain normalization, we here propose to tackle stain variability by data augmentation. We augment the training data of the pretrained model by the stain variability using CycleGANs and then retrain the model on the stain-augmented dataset. We compared the performance of i/ the unmodified pretrained segmentation model with ii/ CycleGAN-based stain normalization, iii/ a feature-preserving modification to ii/ for improved normalization, and iv/ the proposed stain-augmented model. Results: The proposed stain-augmented model showed highest mean segmentation accuracy in all external cohorts and maintained comparable performance on the training cohort. However, the increase in performance was only marginal compared to the pretrained model. CycleGAN-based stain normalization suffered from encoded imperceptible information into the normalizations that confused the pretrained model and thus resulted in slightly worse performance. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that stain variability can be tackled more effectively by augmenting data by it than by following the commonly used approach of normalizing the stain. However, the applicability of this approach providing only a rather slight performance increase has to be weighted against an additional carbon footprint.
Authors: Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi; Geert Litjens; Nadya Timofeeva; Irene Otte-Höller; André Homeyer; Nico Karssemeijer; Jeroen A W M van der Laak Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: David Tellez; Geert Litjens; Péter Bándi; Wouter Bulten; John-Melle Bokhorst; Francesco Ciompi; Jeroen van der Laak Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Michael Gadermayr; Laxmi Gupta; Vitus Appel; Peter Boor; Barbara M Klinkhammer; Dorit Merhof Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Yair Rivenson; Hongda Wang; Zhensong Wei; Kevin de Haan; Yibo Zhang; Yichen Wu; Harun Günaydın; Jonathan E Zuckerman; Thomas Chong; Anthony E Sisk; Lindsey M Westbrook; W Dean Wallace; Aydogan Ozcan Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Ian H de Boer; Charles E Alpers; Evren U Azeloglu; Ulysses G J Balis; Jonathan M Barasch; Laura Barisoni; Kristina N Blank; Andrew S Bomback; Keith Brown; Pierre C Dagher; Ashveena L Dighe; Michael T Eadon; Tarek M El-Achkar; Joseph P Gaut; Nir Hacohen; Yongqun He; Jeffrey B Hodgin; Sanjay Jain; John A Kellum; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Richard Knight; Zoltan G Laszik; Chrysta Lienczewski; Laura H Mariani; Robyn L McClelland; Steven Menez; Dennis G Moledina; Sean D Mooney; John F O'Toole; Paul M Palevsky; Chirag R Parikh; Emilio D Poggio; Sylvia E Rosas; Matthew R Rosengart; Minnie M Sarwal; Jennifer A Schaub; John R Sedor; Kumar Sharma; Becky Steck; Robert D Toto; Olga G Troyanskaya; Katherine R Tuttle; Miguel A Vazquez; Sushrut S Waikar; Kayleen Williams; Francis Perry Wilson; Kun Zhang; Ravi Iyengar; Matthias Kretzler; Jonathan Himmelfarb Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Nassim Bouteldja; Barbara M Klinkhammer; Roman D Bülow; Patrick Droste; Simon W Otten; Saskia Freifrau von Stillfried; Julia Moellmann; Susan M Sheehan; Ron Korstanje; Sylvia Menzel; Peter Bankhead; Matthias Mietsch; Charis Drummer; Michael Lehrke; Rafael Kramann; Jürgen Floege; Peter Boor; Dorit Merhof Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Rosanna Coppo; Stéphan Troyanov; Shubha Bellur; Daniel Cattran; H Terence Cook; John Feehally; Ian S D Roberts; Laura Morando; Roberta Camilla; Vladimir Tesar; Sigrid Lunberg; Loreto Gesualdo; Francesco Emma; Cristiana Rollino; Alessandro Amore; Manuel Praga; Sandro Feriozzi; Giuseppe Segoloni; Antonello Pani; Giovanni Cancarini; Magalena Durlik; Elisabetta Moggia; Gianna Mazzucco; Costantinos Giannakakis; Eva Honsova; B Brigitta Sundelin; Anna Maria Di Palma; Franco Ferrario; Eduardo Gutierrez; Anna Maria Asunis; Jonathan Barratt; Regina Tardanico; Agnieszka Perkowska-Ptasinska Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 10.612