The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expectation–Maximization-Driven Geodesic Active Contour With Overlap Resolution (EMaGACOR): Application to Lymphocyte Segmentation on Breast Cancer Histopathology
Abstract
The presence of lymphocytic infiltration (LI) has been correlated with nodal metastasis and tumor recurrence in HER2+ breast cancer (BC). The ability to automatically detect and quantify extent of LI on histopathology imagery could potentially result in the development of an image based prognostic tool for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2+) BC patients. Lymphocyte segmentation in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained BC histopathology images is complicated by the similarity in appearance between lymphocyte nuclei and other structures (e.g., cancer nuclei) in the image. Additional challenges include biological variability, histological artifacts, and high prevalence of overlapping objects. Although active contours are widely employed in image segmentation, they are limited in their ability to segment overlapping objects and are sensitive to initialization. In this paper, we present a new segmentation scheme, expectation-maximization (EM) driven geodesic active contour with overlap resolution (EMaGACOR), which we apply to automatically detecting and segmenting lymphocytes on HER2+ BC histopathology images. EMaGACOR utilizes the expectation-maximization algorithm for automatically initializing a geodesic active contour (GAC) and includes a novel scheme based on heuristic splitting of contours via identification of high concavity points for resolving overlapping structures. EMaGACOR was evaluated on a total of 100 HER2+ breast biopsy histology images and was found to have a detection sensitivity of over 86% and a positive predictive value of over 64%. By comparison, the EMaGAC model (without overlap resolution) and GAC model yielded corresponding detection sensitivities of 42% and 19%, respectively. Furthermore, EMaGACOR was able to correctly resolve over 90% of overlaps between intersecting lymphocytes. Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean absolute distance (MAD) for EMaGACOR were found to be 2.1 and 0.9 pixels, respectively, and significantly better compared to the corresponding performance of the EMaGAC and GAC models. EMaGACOR is an efficient, robust, reproducible, and accurate segmentation technique that could potentially be applied to other biomedical image analysis problems.
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
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
Snakes, shapes, and gradient vector flow
Xu, C., & Prince, J. L. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/83.661186 · Cited by 4,001
Intratumoral T Cells, Recurrence, and Survival in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Zhang, L., Conejo-Garcia, J. R., Katsaros, D., Gimotty, P. A., Massobrio, M., Regnani, G., Makrigiannakis, A., Gray, H., Schlienger, K., Liebman, M. N., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa020177 · Cited by 3,397
Doyle, S., Agner, S., Madabhushi, A., Feldman, M., & Tomaszewski, J. (2008) · 2008 5th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro · doi:10.1109/isbi.2008.4541041 · Cited by 276
Self-citation
Cited by
Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: challenges and opportunities
Madabhushi, A., & Lee, G. (2016) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.06.037 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citationStacked Sparse Autoencoder (SSAE) for Nuclei Detection on Breast Cancer Histopathology Images
Xu, J., Xiang, L., Liu, Q., Gilmore, H., Wu, J., Tang, J., & Madabhushi, A. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2015.2458702 · Cited by 854
Self-citationBreast Cancer Histopathology Image Analysis: A Review
Veta, M., Pluim, J. P. W., van Diest, P. J., & Viergever, M. A. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2014.2303852 · Cited by 696
Aeffner, F., Zarella, M. D., Buchbinder, N., Bui, M. M., Goodman, M. R., Hartman, D. J., Lujan, G. M., Molani, M. A., Parwani, A. V., Lillard, K., et al. (2019) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_82_18 · Cited by 403
An Automatic Learning-Based Framework for Robust Nucleus Segmentation
Xing, F., Xie, Y., & Yang, L. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2015.2481436 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Fatakdawala, H., Xu, J., Basavanhally, A., Bhanot, G., Ganesan, S., Feldman, M., Tomaszewski, J. E., & Madabhushi, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1676-1689
- ISSN
- 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2133866056
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.62
- Type
- journal article
- 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
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.