Cited by 1,482AI in cancer detectionCell Image Analysis TechniquesDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases

A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis

Macenko, Marc, Niethammer, Marc, Marron, J. S., Borland, David, Woosley, John T., Xiaojun Guan, Schmitt, Charles, Thomas, Nancy E.·2009·2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro

Abstract

Inconsistencies in the preparation of histology slides make it difficult to perform quantitative analysis on their results. In this paper we provide two mechanisms for overcoming many of the known inconsistencies in the staining process, thereby bringing slides that were processed or stored under very different conditions into a common, normalized space to enable improved quantitative analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/isbi.2009.5193250

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Specialized methods for stain variation typically fall into one of two categories: data augmentation methods that perturb colors in training images or stain normalization methods that standardize colors across training images.

    “These typically fall into one of two categories: data augmentation methods that perturb the colors in the training images (e.g., Liu et al. (2017); Bug et al. (2017); Tellez et al. (2018)) or stain normalization methods that seek to standardize colors across training images (e.g., Macenko et al. (2009); BenTaieb and Hamarneh (2017)).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Macenko et al. (2009)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Macenko, M., Niethammer, M., Marron, J. S., Borland, D., Woosley, J. T., Guan, X., Schmitt, C., & Thomas, N. E.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2009-06
Pages
1107-1110
OpenAlex
W2132162500
Cited by
1,482
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 170 · 2025: 198 · 2024: 208 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 190 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.81
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Keywords
quantitative histology, image normalization, histological image analysis

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