Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods for Segmentation and Classification of Digital Microscopy Tissue Images

Open access
Vu, Quoc Dang, Graham, Simon, Kurc, Tahsin, To, Minh Nguyen Nhat, Shaban, Muhammad, Qaiser, Talha, Koohbanani, Navid Alemi, Khurram, Syed Ali, Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree, Zhao, Tianhao, Gupta, Rajarsi, Kwak, Jin Tae, Rajpoot, Nasir, Saltz, Joel, Farahani, Keyvan·2019·Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

Abstract

High-resolution microscopy images of tissue specimens provide detailed information about the morphology of normal and diseased tissue. Image analysis of tissue morphology can help cancer researchers develop a better understanding of cancer biology. Segmentation of nuclei and classification of tissue images are two common tasks in tissue image analysis. Development of accurate and efficient algorithms for these tasks is a challenging problem because of the complexity of tissue morphology and tumor heterogeneity. In this paper we present two computer algorithms; one designed for segmentation of nuclei and the other for classification of whole slide tissue images. The segmentation algorithm implements a multiscale deep residual aggregation network to accurately segment nuclear material and then separate clumped nuclei into individual nuclei. The classification algorithm initially carries out patch-level classification via a deep learning method, then patch-level statistical and morphological features are used as input to a random forest regression model for whole slide image classification. The segmentation and classification algorithms were evaluated in the MICCAI 2017 Digital Pathology challenge. The segmentation algorithm achieved an accuracy score of 0.78. The classification algorithm achieved an accuracy score of 0.81. These scores were the highest in the challenge.

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 · 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00053

Cites

47 of 47 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 47 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Vu, Q. D., Graham, S., Kurc, T., To, M. N. N., Shaban, M., Qaiser, T., Koohbanani, N. A., Khurram, S. A., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Zhao, T., Gupta, R., Kwak, J. T., Rajpoot, N., Saltz, J., & Farahani, K.
Venue
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Published
2019-04-02
Volume
7
Pages
53-53
ISSN
2296-4185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899488262
Cited by
336
References
47
FWCI
14.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Methods for Segmentation and Classification of Digital Microscopy Tissue Images. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00053
The paper
Vu, Q. D., Graham, S., Kurc, T., To, M. N. N., Shaban, M., Qaiser, T., Koohbanani, N. A., Khurram, S. A., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Zhao, T., Gupta, R., Kwak, J. T., Rajpoot, N., Saltz, J., & Farahani, K. (2019). Methods for Segmentation and Classification of Digital Microscopy Tissue Images. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00053

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.