Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

H&E Multi-Laboratory Staining Variance Exploration with Machine Learning

Kuopio Teijo; Polonen Ilkka; Ruusuvuori Pekka; Prezja Fabi; Ayramo Sami

H&E Multi-Laboratory Staining Variance Exploration with Machine Learning

Kuopio Teijo
Polonen Ilkka
Ruusuvuori Pekka
Prezja Fabi
Ayramo Sami
Katso/Avaa
applsci-12-07511-v2.pdf (25.82Mb)
Lataukset: 

MDPI
doi:10.3390/app12157511
URI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157511
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022091258675
Tiivistelmä
In diagnostic histopathology, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining is a critical process that highlights salient histological features. Staining results vary between laboratories regardless of the histopathological task, although the method does not change. This variance can impair the accuracy of algorithms and histopathologists' time-to-insight. Investigating this variance can help calibrate stain normalization tasks to reverse this negative potential. With machine learning, this study evaluated the staining variance between different laboratories on three tissue types. We received H&E-stained slides from 66 different laboratories. Each slide contained kidney, skin, and colon tissue samples stained by the method routinely used in each laboratory. The samples were digitized and summarized as red, green, and blue channel histograms. Dimensions were reduced using principal component analysis. The data projected by principal components were inserted into the k-means clustering algorithm and the k-nearest neighbors classifier with the laboratories as the target. The k-means silhouette index indicated that K = 2 clusters had the best separability in all tissue types. The supervised classification result showed laboratory effects and tissue-type bias. Both supervised and unsupervised approaches suggested that tissue type also affected inter-laboratory variance. We suggest tissue type to also be considered upon choosing the staining and color-normalization approach.
Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [19207]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste