Literature DB >> 9692681

A review of caveats in statistical nuclear image analysis.

H Schulerud1, G B Kristensen, K Liestøl, L Vlatkovic, A Reith, F Albregtsen, H E Danielsen.   

Abstract

A large body of the published literature in nuclear image analysis do not evaluate their findings on an independent data set. Hence, if several features are evaluated on a limited data set over-optimistic results are easily achieved. In order to find features that separate different outcome classes of interest, statistical evaluation of the nuclear features must be performed. Furthermore, to classify an unknown sample using image analysis, a classification rule must be designed and evaluated. Unfortunately, statistical evaluation methods used in the literature of nuclear image analysis are often inappropriate. The present article discusses some of the difficulties in statistical evaluation of nuclear image analysis, and a study of cervical cancer is presented in order to illustrate the problems. In conclusion, some of the most severe errors in nuclear image analysis occur in analysis of a large feature set, including few patients, without confirming the results on an independent data set. To select features, Bonferroni correction for multiple test is recommended, together with a standard feature set selection method. Furthermore, we consider that the minimum requirement of performing statistical evaluation in nuclear image analysis is confirmation of the results on an independent data set. We suggest that a consensus of how to perform evaluation of diagnostic and prognostic features is necessary, in order to develop reliable tools for clinical use, based on nuclear image analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9692681      PMCID: PMC4612271          DOI: 10.1155/1998/436382

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Cell Pathol        ISSN: 0921-8912            Impact factor:   2.916


  7 in total

1.  Classifying tissue samples from measurements on cells with within-class tissue sample heterogeneity.

Authors:  Jose-Miguel Yamal; Michele Follen; Martial Guillaud; Dennis D Cox
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Development and Assessment of an Integrated Computer-Aided Detection Scheme for Digital Microscopic Images of Metaphase Chromosomes.

Authors:  Xingwei Wang; Bin Zheng; Shibo Li; John J Mulvihill; Hong Liu
Journal:  J Electron Imaging       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 0.945

3.  Comparison of nuclear texture analysis and image cytometric DNA analysis for the assessment of dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  J M Dunn; T Hveem; M Pretorius; D Oukrif; B Nielsen; F Albregtsen; L B Lovat; M R Novelli; H E Danielsen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  3D texture analysis in renal cell carcinoma tissue image grading.

Authors:  Tae-Yun Kim; Nam-Hoon Cho; Goo-Bo Jeong; Ewert Bengtsson; Heung-Kook Choi
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 2.238

5.  Validation of various adaptive threshold methods of segmentation applied to follicular lymphoma digital images stained with 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine&Haematoxylin.

Authors:  Anna Korzynska; Lukasz Roszkowiak; Carlos Lopez; Ramon Bosch; Lukasz Witkowski; Marylene Lejeune
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 2.644

6.  Entropy-based adaptive nuclear texture features are independent prognostic markers in a total population of uterine sarcomas.

Authors:  Birgitte Nielsen; Tarjei Sveinsgjerd Hveem; Wanja Kildal; Vera M Abeler; Gunnar B Kristensen; Fritz Albregtsen; Håvard E Danielsen
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 4.355

7.  Chromatin changes predict recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tarjei S Hveem; Andreas Kleppe; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Elin Ersvær; Håkon Wæhre; Birgitte Nielsen; Marte Avranden Kjær; Manohar Pradhan; Rolf Anders Syvertsen; John Arne Nesheim; Knut Liestøl; Fritz Albregtsen; Håvard E Danielsen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.