Dataset Information

Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.

ABSTRACT: The multicenter Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) digital pathology scoring system employs a novel and comprehensive methodology to document pathologic features from whole-slide images, immunofluorescence and ultrastructural digital images. To estimate inter- and intra-reader concordance of this descriptor-based approach, data from 12 pathologists (eight NEPTUNE and four non-NEPTUNE) with experience from training to 30 years were collected. A descriptor reference manual was generated and a webinar-based protocol for consensus/cross-training implemented. Intra-reader concordance for 51 glomerular descriptors was evaluated on jpeg images by seven NEPTUNE pathologists scoring 131 glomeruli three times (Tests I, II, and III), each test following a consensus webinar review. Inter-reader concordance of glomerular descriptors was evaluated in 315 glomeruli by all pathologists; interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (244 cases, whole-slide images) and four ultrastructural podocyte descriptors (178 cases, jpeg images) were evaluated once by six and five pathologists, respectively. Cohen's kappa for inter-reader concordance for 48/51 glomerular descriptors with sufficient observations was moderate (0.40

SUBMITTER: Barisoni L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5515468 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.

Barisoni Laura L Troost Jonathan P JP Nast Cynthia C Bagnasco Serena S Avila-Casado Carmen C Hodgin Jeffrey J Palmer Matthew M Rosenberg Avi A Gasim Adil A Liensziewski Chrysta C Merlino Lino L Chien Hui-Ping HP Chang Anthony A Meehan Shane M SM Gaut Joseph J Song Peter P Holzman Lawrence L Gibson Debbie D Kretzler Matthias M Gillespie Brenda W BW Hewitt Stephen M SM

Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc 20160422 7

The multicenter Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) digital pathology scoring system employs a novel and comprehensive methodology to document pathologic features from whole-slide images, immunofluorescence and ultrastructural digital images. To estimate inter- and intra-reader concordance of this descriptor-based approach, data from 12 pathologists (eight NEPTUNE and four non-NEPTUNE) with experience from training to 30 years were collected. A descriptor reference manual was generated an ...[more]

PMID: 27102348

Similar Datasets

Project description:For a method to be widely adopted in medical research or clinical practice, it needs to be reproducible so that clinicians and regulators can have confidence in its use. Machine learning and deep learning have a particular set of challenges around reproducibility. Small differences in the settings or the data used for training a model can lead to large differences in the outcomes of experiments. In this work, three top-performing algorithms from the Camelyon grand challenges are reproduced using only information presented in the associated papers and the results are then compared to those reported. Seemingly minor details were found to be critical to performance and yet their importance is difficult to appreciate until the actual reproduction is attempted. We observed that authors generally describe the key technical aspects of their models well but fail to maintain the same reporting standards when it comes to data preprocessing which is essential to reproducibility. As an important contribution of the present study and its findings, we introduce a reproducibility checklist that tabulates information that needs to be reported in histopathology ML-based work in order to make it reproducible. Author summary For a method to be used a lot in medical research or clinical practice, it needs to be able to be reproduced so that people can trust it. Machine learning and deep learning have some challenges around this. For example, small changes in how a model is trained can lead to significant changes in the results of experiments. This makes it essential that researchers report how they do things in enough detail for the results of their experiments to be reproducible. In this work, we looked at three different algorithms used for digital pathology image analysis. We tried to reproduce them using only the information reported in their papers. We confirmed that even minor details could be essential. Authors often do not report all the details needed to reproduce their work. We also created a checklist of things that need to be reported to help other researchers make their work reproducible.

Project description:BackgroundOnly prototypes 5 years ago, high-speed, automated whole slide imaging (WSI) systems (also called digital slide systems, virtual microscopes or wide field imagers) are becoming increasingly capable and robust. Modern devices can capture a slide in 5 minutes at spatial sampling periods of less than 0.5 micron/pixel. The capacity to rapidly digitize large numbers of slides should eventually have a profound, positive impact on pathology. It is important, however, that pathologists validate these systems during development, not only to identify their limitations but to guide their evolution.MethodsThree pathologists fully signed out 25 cases representing 31 parts. The laboratory information system was used to simulate real-world sign-out conditions including entering a full diagnostic field and comment (when appropriate) and ordering special stains and recuts. For each case, discrepancies between diagnoses were documented by committee and a "consensus" report was formed and then compared with the microscope-based, sign-out report from the clinical archive.ResultsIn 17 of 25 cases there were no discrepancies between the individual study pathologist reports. In 8 of the remaining cases, there were 12 discrepancies, including 3 in which image quality could be at least partially implicated. When the WSI consensus diagnoses were compared with the original sign-out diagnoses, no significant discrepancies were found. Full text of the pathologist reports, the WSI consensus diagnoses, and the original sign-out diagnoses are available as an attachment to this publication.ConclusionThe results indicated that the image information contained in current whole slide images is sufficient for pathologists to make reliable diagnostic decisions and compose complex diagnostic reports. This is a very positive result; however, this does not mean that WSI is as good as a microscope. Virtually every slide had focal areas in which image quality (focus and dynamic range) was less than perfect. In some cases, there was evidence of over-compression and regions made "soft" by less than perfect focus. We expect systems will continue to get better, image quality and speed will continue to improve, but that further validation studies will be needed to guide development of this promising technology.

Project description:Validating digital pathology as substitute for conventional microscopy in diagnosis remains a priority to assure effectiveness. Intermodality concordance studies typically focus on achieving the same diagnosis by digital display of whole slide images and conventional microscopy. Assessment of discrete histological features in whole slide images, such as mitotic figures, has not been thoroughly evaluated in diagnostic practice. To further gauge the interchangeability of conventional microscopy with digital display for primary diagnosis, 12 pathologists examined 113 canine naturally occurring mucosal melanomas exhibiting a wide range of mitotic activity. Design reflected diverse diagnostic settings and investigated independent location, interpretation, and enumeration of mitotic figures. Intermodality agreement was assessed employing conventional microscopy (CM40×), and whole slide image specimens scanned at 20× (WSI20×) and at 40× (WSI40×) objective magnifications. An aggregate 1647 mitotic figure count observations were available from conventional microscopy and whole slide images for comparison. The intraobserver concordance rate of paired observations was 0.785 to 0.801; interobserver rate was 0.784 to 0.794. Correlation coefficients between the 2 digital modes, and as compared to conventional microscopy, were similar and suggest noninferiority among modalities, including whole slide image acquired at lower 20× resolution. As mitotic figure counts serve for prognostic grading of several tumor types, including melanoma, 6 of 8 pathologists retrospectively predicted survival prognosis using whole slide images, compared to 9 of 10 by conventional microscopy, a first evaluation of whole slide image for mitotic figure prognostic grading. This study demonstrated agreement of replicate reads obtained across conventional microscopy and whole slide images. Hence, quantifying mitotic figures served as surrogate histological feature with which to further credential the interchangeability of whole slide images for primary diagnosis.

Dataset Information

Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.

Publications

Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets