Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Boosted Bayesian Multiresolution Classifier for Prostate Cancer Detection From Digitized Needle Biopsies

Doyle, S., Feldman, M., Tomaszewski, J., Madabhushi, A.·2012·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

Diagnosis of prostate cancer (CaP) currently involves examining tissue samples for CaP presence and extent via a microscope, a time-consuming and subjective process. With the advent of digital pathology, computer-aided algorithms can now be applied to disease detection on digitized glass slides. The size of these digitized histology images (hundreds of millions of pixels) presents a formidable challenge for any computerized image analysis program. In this paper, we present a boosted Bayesian multiresolution (BBMR) system to identify regions of CaP on digital biopsy slides. Such a system would serve as an important preceding step to a Gleason grading algorithm, where the objective would be to score the invasiveness and severity of the disease. In the first step, our algorithm decomposes the whole-slide image into an image pyramid comprising multiple resolution levels. Regions identified as cancer via a Bayesian classifier at lower resolution levels are subsequently examined in greater detail at higher resolution levels, thereby allowing for rapid and efficient analysis of large images. At each resolution level, ten image features are chosen from a pool of over 900 first-order statistical, second-order co-occurrence, and Gabor filter features using an AdaBoost ensemble method. The BBMR scheme, operating on 100 images obtained from 58 patients, yielded: 1) areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.83, and 0.76, respectively, at the lowest, intermediate, and highest resolution levels and 2) an eightfold savings in terms of computational time compared to running the algorithm directly at full (highest) resolution. The BBMR model outperformed (in terms of AUC): 1) individual features (no ensemble) and 2) a random forest classifier ensemble obtained by bagging multiple decision tree classifiers. The apparent drop-off in AUC at higher image resolutions is due to lack of fine detail in the expert annotation of CaP and is not an artifact of the classifier. The implicit feature selection done via the AdaBoost component of the BBMR classifier reveals that different classes and types of image features become more relevant for discriminating between CaP and benign areas at different image resolutions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2010.2053540

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Doyle, S., Feldman, M., Tomaszewski, J., & Madabhushi, A.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2012-05
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
1205-1218
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W2030041075
Cited by
253
References
33
FWCI
17.68
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.