Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,126

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

Kumar, Neeraj, Verma, Ruchika, Sharma, Sanuj, Bhargava, Surabhi, Vahadane, Abhishek, Sethi, Amit·2017·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tmi.2017.2677499

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 1,126

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.