Validating Whole Slide Digital Morphometric Analysis as a Microscopy Tool
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Whole slide imaging (WSI) can be used to quantify multiple responses within tissue sections during histological analysis. Feature Analysis on Consecutive Tissue Sections (FACTS®) allows the investigator to perform digital morphometric analysis (DMA) within specified regions of interest (ROI) across multiple serial sections at faster rates when compared with manual morphometry methods. Using FACTS® in conjunction with WSI is a powerful analysis tool, which allows DMA to target specific ROI across multiple tissue sections stained for different biomarkers. DMA may serve as an appropriate alternative to classic, manual, histologic morphometric measures, which have historically relied on the selection of high-powered fields of views and manual scoring (e.g., a gold standard). In the current study, existing preserved samples were used to determine if DMA would provide similar results to manual counting methods. Rodent hearts (n=14, left ventricles) were stained with Masson’s trichrome, and reacted for cluster of differentiation 68 (CD-68). This study found no statistical significant difference between a classic, manual method and the use of digital algorithms to perform the similar counts (p=0.38). DMA offers researchers the ability to accurately evaluate morphological characteristics in a reproducible fashion without investigator bias and with higher throughput.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications · Cell Image Analysis Techniques · Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.00610.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.006 ↗
2. Beyond morphology: Whole slide imaging, computer-aided detection, and other techniques10.5858/2008-132-758-BMWSIC ↗
3. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817fb3a010.1097/PAS.0b013e31817fb3a0 ↗
4. Defining the role of anatomic pathology images in the multimedia electronic medical record—a preliminary report
5. 10.1097/PAI.0b013e3181f5e84d10.1097/PAI.0b013e3181f5e84d ↗
6. 10.1109/IMVIP.2007.910.1109/IMVIP.2007.9 ↗
7. Mulrane L. , Rexhepaj E. , Penney S. , Callanan J.J. & Gallagher W.M. (2008). Automated image analysis in histopathology: a valuable tool in medical diagnostics. Expert Reviews of Molecular Diagostics 8.6: 707.
8. 10.1016/j.prp.2009.05.00410.1016/j.prp.2009.05.004 ↗
9. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03814.x10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.03814.x ↗
10. 10.1007/s00167-006-0187-610.1007/s00167-006-0187-6 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2010.12.00410.1016/j.compmedimag.2010.12.004 ↗
12. 10.1136/jcp.46.4.33410.1136/jcp.46.4.334 ↗
13. 10.3109/00313025.2010.50878710.3109/00313025.2010.508787 ↗
14. Computer aided diagnostic tools aim to empower rather than replace pathologists: Lessons learned from computational chess10.4103/2153-3539.82050 ↗
15. 10.1097/01.MP.0000084631.64279.BC10.1097/01.MP.0000084631.64279.BC ↗
16. 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.08.02610.1016/j.humpath.2009.08.026 ↗
17. 10.1097/FJC.0b013e318213258b10.1097/FJC.0b013e318213258b ↗
18. 10.1002/jbm.1003210.1002/jbm.10032 ↗
19. 10.1186/bcr294610.1186/bcr2946 ↗
20. 10.1007/s00418-007-0368-510.1007/s00418-007-0368-5 ↗
21. 10.1097/PAI.0b013e318229ea9e10.1097/PAI.0b013e318229ea9e ↗
22. 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.09.00110.1016/j.drudis.2010.09.001 ↗
23. 10.1371/journal.pone.001552110.1371/journal.pone.0015521 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.carpath.2010.01.01110.1016/j.carpath.2010.01.011 ↗
25. 10.2478/v10042-010-0015-110.2478/v10042-010-0015-1 ↗
26. 10.1177/030098581350357010.1177/0300985813503570 ↗
27. 10.4103/2153-3539.9545610.4103/2153-3539.95456 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.05010.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.050 ↗