The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AUTOMATED GRADING OF PROSTATE CANCER USING ARCHITECTURAL AND TEXTURAL IMAGE FEATURES
Abstract
The current method of grading prostate cancer on histology uses the Gleason system, which describes five increasingly malignant stages of cancer according to qualitative analysis of tissue architecture. The Gleason grading system has been shown to suffer from inter- and intra-observer variability. In this paper we present a new method for automated and quantitative grading of prostate biopsy specimens. A total of 102 graph-based, morphological, and textural features are extracted from each tissue patch in order to quantify the arrangement of nuclei and glandular structures within digitized images of histological prostate tissue specimens. A support vector machine (SVM) is used to classify the digitized histology slides into one of four different tissue classes: benign epithelium, benign stroma, Gleason grade 3 adenocarcinoma, and Gleason grade 4 adenocarcinoma. The SVM classifier was able to distinguish between all four types of tissue patterns, achieving an accuracy of 92.8% when distinguishing between Gleason grade 3 and stroma, 92.4% between epithelium and stroma, and 76.9% between Gleason grades 3 and 4. Both textural and graph-based features were found to be important in discriminating between different tissue classes. This work suggests that the current Gleason grading scheme can be improved by utilizing quantitative image analysis to aid pathologists in producing an accurate and reproducible diagnosis
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Textural Features for Image Classification
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314 · Cited by 22,886
Cited by
Histopathological Image Analysis: A Review
Gurcan, M. N., Boucheron, L. E., Can, A., Madabhushi, A., Rajpoot, N. M., & Yener, B. (2009) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2009.2034865 · Cited by 2,052
Self-citationMachine Learning Methods for Histopathological Image Analysis
Komura, D., & Ishikawa, S. (2018) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.01.001 · Cited by 937
Chen, R. J., Lu, M. Y., Wang, J., Williamson, D. F. K., Rodig, S. J., Lindeman, N. I., & Mahmood, F. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2020.3021387 · Cited by 729
Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms During Medical Decision-Making
Cai, C. J., Reif, E., Hegde, N., Hipp, J., Kim, B., Smilkov, D., Wattenberg, M., Viegas, F., Corrado, G. S., Stumpe, M. C., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300234 · Cited by 405
Deep learning for classification of colorectal polyps on whole-slide images
Korbar, B., Olofson, A. M., Miraflor, A. P., Nicka, C. M., Suriawinata, M. A., Torresani, L., Suriawinata, A. A., & Hassanpour, S. (2017) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_34_17 · Cited by 349
Metadata
- Authors
- Doyle, S., Hwang, M., Shah, K., Madabhushi, A., Feldman, M., & Tomaszeweski, J.
- Venue
- 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2007
- Pages
- 1284-1287
- OpenAlex
- W2160738726
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.54
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: AUTOMATED GRADING OF PROSTATE CANCER USING ARCHITECTURAL AND TEXTURAL IMAGE FEATURES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/isbi.2007.357094
- The paper
- Doyle, S., Hwang, M., Shah, K., Madabhushi, A., Feldman, M., & Tomaszeweski, J. (2007). AUTOMATED GRADING OF PROSTATE CANCER USING ARCHITECTURAL AND TEXTURAL IMAGE FEATURES. 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro. https://doi.org/10.1109/isbi.2007.357094
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.