Back

Learning precise segmentation of neurofibrillary tangles from rapid manual point annotations

Ghandian, S.; Albarghouthi, L.; Nava, K.; Sharma, S. R. R.; Minaud, L.; Beckett, L.; Saito, N.; DeCarli, C.; Rissman, R. A.; Teich, A. F.; Jin, L.-W.; Dugger, B. N.; Keiser, M. J.

2024-09-24 pathology
10.1101/2024.05.15.594372 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accumulation of abnormal tau protein into neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) is a pathologic hallmark of Alzheimer disease (AD). Accurate detection of NFTs in tissue samples can reveal relationships with clinical, demographic, and genetic features through deep phenotyping. However, expert manual analysis is time-consuming, subject to observer variability, and cannot handle the data amounts generated by modern imaging. We present a scalable, open-source, deep-learning approach to quantify NFT burden in digital whole slide images (WSIs) of post-mortem human brain tissue. To achieve this, we developed a method to generate detailed NFT boundaries directly from single-point-per-NFT annotations. We then trained a semantic segmentation model on 45 annotated 2400{micro}m by 1200{micro}m regions of interest (ROIs) selected from 15 unique temporal cortex WSIs of AD cases from three institutions (University of California (UC)-Davis, UC-San Diego, and Columbia University). Segmenting NFTs at the single-pixel level, the model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.832 and an F1 of 0.527 (196-fold over random) on a held-out test set of 664 NFTs from 20 ROIs (7 WSIs). We compared this to deep object detection, which achieved comparable but coarser-grained performance that was 60% faster. The segmentation and object detection models correlated well with expert semi-quantitative scores at the whole-slide level (Spearmans rho {rho}=0.654 (p=6.50e-5) and {rho}=0.513 (p=3.18e-3), respectively). We openly release this multi-institution deep-learning pipeline to provide detailed NFT spatial distribution and morphology analysis capability at a scale otherwise infeasible by manual assessment.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.