↓ Skip to main content

Digital pathology imaging and computer-aided diagnostics as a novel tool for standardization of evaluation of aganglionic megacolon (Hirschsprung disease) histopathology

Overview of attention for article published in Cell and Tissue Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Digital pathology imaging and computer-aided diagnostics as a novel tool for standardization of evaluation of aganglionic megacolon (Hirschsprung disease) histopathology
Published in
Cell and Tissue Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00441-018-2911-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Schilling, Carol E. Geppert, Johanna Strehl, Arndt Hartmann, Stefanie Kuerten, Axel Brehmer, Samir Jabari

Abstract

Based on a recently introduced immunohistochemical panel (Bachmann et al. 2015) for aganglionic megacolon (AM), also known as Hirschsprung disease, histopathological diagnosis, we evaluated whether the use of digital pathology and 'machine learning' could help to obtain a reliable diagnosis. Slides were obtained from 31 specimens of 27 patients immunohistochemically stained for MAP2, calretinin, S100β and GLUT1. Slides were digitized by whole slide scanning. We used a Definiens Developer Tissue Studios as software for analysis. We configured necessary parameters in combination with 'machine learning' to identify pathological aberrations. A significant difference between AM- and non-AM-affected tissues was found for calretinin (AM 0.55% vs. non-AM 1.44%) and MAP2 (AM 0.004% vs. non-AM 0.07%) staining measurements and software-based evaluations. In contrast, S100β and GLUT1 staining measurements and software-based evaluations showed no significant differences between AM- and non-AM-affected tissues. However, no difference was found in comparison of suction biopsies with resections. Applying machine learning via an ensemble voting classifier, we achieved an accuracy of 87.5% on the test set. Automated diagnosis of AM by applying digital pathology on immunohistochemical panels was successful for calretinin and MAP2, whereas S100β and GLUT1 were not effective in diagnosis. Our method suggests that software-based approaches are capable of diagnosing AM. Our future challenge will be the improvement of efficiency by reduction of the time-consuming need for large pre-labelled training data. With increasing technical improvement, especially in unsupervised training procedures, this method could be helpful in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Engineering 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#19,236,357
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Research
#1,706
of 2,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,242
of 337,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Research
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,279 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.