Back

Improving the Virtual Trichrome Assessment through Bridge Category Models

Levy, J.; Bobak, C. A.; Azizgolshani, N.; Liu, X.; Ren, B.; Lisovsky, M.; Suriawinata, A. A.; Christensen, B.; O'Malley, J.; Vaickus, L. J.

2021-11-01 pathology
10.1101/2021.10.30.466613 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a liver disease characterized by excessive lipid accumulation and disease progression is typically assessed through inspection of a Trichrome stain for Fibrosis staging. As the public health burden of NASH worsens due to evolving lifestyle habits, pathology laboratory resources will become increasingly strained due to rising demand for specialized stains. Virtual staining processes, computational methods which can synthesize the application of chemical staining reagents, can potentially provide resource savings by obviating the need to acquire specialized stains. Virtual staining technologies are assessed by comparing virtual and real tissue stains for their realism and ability to stage. However, these assessment methods are rife with statistical mistreatment of observed phenomena that are difficult to account for. Bridge category ratings represent a phenomenon where a pathologist may assign two adjacent stages simultaneously, which may bias and/or reduce the power of research findings. Such stage assignments were frequently reported in a large-scale assessment of Virtual Trichrome technologies yet were unaccounted for since no statistical adjustment procedures existed. In this work, we provide an updated assessment of Virtual Trichrome technologies using Bridge Category Models, which account for these bridge ratings. We report that two of four pathologists tended to assign lower Fibrosis stages to virtually stained tissue while the other two pathologists assigned similar stages. These research findings differ when bridge ratings are not accounted for. While promising, these results indicate further room for algorithmic finetuning of Virtual Trichrome technologies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Pathology Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.8%
2
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.5%
3
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.1%
6
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.7%
8
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
9
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
10
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
13
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
Journal of Visualized Experiments
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
19
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
21
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%