The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dataset and a Technique for Generalized Nuclear Segmentation for Computational Pathology
Abstract
Nuclear segmentation in digital microscopic tissue images can enable extraction of high-quality features for nuclear morphometrics and other analysis in computational pathology. Conventional image processing techniques, such as Otsu thresholding and watershed segmentation, do not work effectively on challenging cases, such as chromatin-sparse and crowded nuclei. In contrast, machine learning-based segmentation can generalize across various nuclear appearances. However, training machine learning algorithms requires data sets of images, in which a vast number of nuclei have been annotated. Publicly accessible and annotated data sets, along with widely agreed upon metrics to compare techniques, have catalyzed tremendous innovation and progress on other image classification problems, particularly in object recognition. Inspired by their success, we introduce a large publicly accessible data set of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue images with more than 21000 painstakingly annotated nuclear boundaries, whose quality was validated by a medical doctor. Because our data set is taken from multiple hospitals and includes a diversity of nuclear appearances from several patients, disease states, and organs, techniques trained on it are likely to generalize well and work right out-of-the-box on other H&E-stained images. We also propose a new metric to evaluate nuclear segmentation results that penalizes object- and pixel-level errors in a unified manner, unlike previous metrics that penalize only one type of error. We also propose a segmentation technique based on deep learning that lays a special emphasis on identifying the nuclear boundaries, including those between the touching or overlapping nuclei, and works well on a diverse set of test images.
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
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis
Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., et al. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2019 · Cited by 66,890
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380
Sirinukunwattana, K., Raza, S. E. A., Tsang, Y.-W., Snead, D. R. J., Cree, I. A., & Rajpoot, N. M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2525803 · Cited by 1,224
Improved Automatic Detection and Segmentation of Cell Nuclei in Histopathology Images
Al-Kofahi, Y., Lassoued, W., Lee, W., & Roysam, B. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2009.2035102 · Cited by 681
Cited by
Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segmentation
Stringer, C., Wang, T., Michaelos, M., & Pachitariu, M. (2021) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01018-x · Cited by 4,369
Deep learning for cellular image analysis
Moen, E., Bannon, D., Kudo, T., Graf, W., Covert, M., & Van Valen, D. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0403-1 · Cited by 1,225
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence
Niazi, M. K. K., Parwani, A. V., & Gurcan, M. N. (2019) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30154-8 · Cited by 1,232
Nuclei Segmentation with Recurrent Residual Convolutional Neural Networks based U-Net (R2U-Net)
Alom, M. Z., Yakopcic, C., Taha, T. M., & Asari, V. K. (2018) · NAECON 2018 - IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference · doi:10.1109/naecon.2018.8556686 · Cited by 1,020
Machine 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, N., Verma, R., Sharma, S., Bhargava, S., Vahadane, A., & Sethi, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1550-1560
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- OpenAlex
- W2592905743
- Cited by
- 1,126
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 34.28
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Dataset and a Technique for Generalized Nuclear Segmentation for Computational Pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2017.2677499
- The paper
- Kumar, N., Verma, R., Sharma, S., Bhargava, S., Vahadane, A., & Sethi, A. (2017). A Dataset and a Technique for Generalized Nuclear Segmentation for Computational Pathology. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2017.2677499
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.