↓ Skip to main content

Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott Doyle, Michael D Feldman, Natalie Shih, John Tomaszewski, Anant Madabhushi

Abstract

Automated classification of histopathology involves identification of multiple classes, including benign, cancerous, and confounder categories. The confounder tissue classes can often mimic and share attributes with both the diseased and normal tissue classes, and can be particularly difficult to identify, both manually and by automated classifiers. In the case of prostate cancer, they may be several confounding tissue types present in a biopsy sample, posing as major sources of diagnostic error for pathologists. Two common multi-class approaches are one-shot classification (OSC), where all classes are identified simultaneously, and one-versus-all (OVA), where a "target" class is distinguished from all "non-target" classes. OSC is typically unable to handle discrimination of classes of varying similarity (e.g. with images of prostate atrophy and high grade cancer), while OVA forces several heterogeneous classes into a single "non-target" class. In this work, we present a cascaded (CAS) approach to classifying prostate biopsy tissue samples, where images from different classes are grouped to maximize intra-group homogeneity while maximizing inter-group heterogeneity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 19%
Computer Science 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,383,331
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,468
of 7,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,411
of 183,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#35
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 183,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.