↓ Skip to main content

Automated quantification of proliferation with automated hot-spot selection in phosphohistone H3/MART1 dual-stained stage I/II melanoma

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Automated quantification of proliferation with automated hot-spot selection in phosphohistone H3/MART1 dual-stained stage I/II melanoma
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13000-016-0484-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Switten Nielsen, Rikke Riber-Hansen, Henrik Schmidt, Torben Steiniche

Abstract

Staging of melanoma includes quantification of a proliferation index, i.e., presumed melanocytic mitoses of H&E stains are counted manually in hot spots. Yet, its reproducibility and prognostic impact increases by immunohistochemical dual staining for phosphohistone H3 (PHH3) and MART1, which also may enable fully automated quantification by image analysis. To ensure manageable workloads and repeatable measurements in modern pathology, the study aimed to present an automated quantification of proliferation with automated hot-spot selection in PHH3/MART1-stained melanomas. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from 153 consecutive stage I/II melanoma patients was immunohistochemically dual-stained for PHH3 and MART1. Whole slide images were captured, and the number of PHH3/MART1-positive cells was manually and automatically counted in the global tumor area and in a manually and automatically selected hot spot, i.e., a fixed 1-mm(2) square. Bland-Altman plots and hypothesis tests compared manual and automated procedures, and the Cox proportional hazards model established their prognostic impact. The mean difference between manual and automated global counts was 2.9 cells/mm(2) (P = 0.0071) and 0.23 cells per hot spot (P = 0.96) for automated counts in manually and automatically selected hot spots. In 77 % of cases, manual and automated hot spots overlapped. Fully manual hot-spot counts yielded the highest prognostic performance with an adjusted hazard ratio of 5.5 (95 % CI, 1.3-24, P = 0.024) as opposed to 1.3 (95 % CI, 0.61-2.9, P = 0.47) for automated counts with automated hot spots. The automated index and automated hot-spot selection were highly correlated to their manual counterpart, but altogether their prognostic impact was noticeably reduced. Because correct recognition of only one PHH3/MART1-positive cell seems important, extremely high sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm is required for prognostic purposes. Thus, automated analysis may still aid and improve the pathologists' detection of mitoses in melanoma and possibly other malignancies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Librarian 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 32%
Computer Science 4 16%
Engineering 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 May 2022.
All research outputs
#13,975,135
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#393
of 1,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,355
of 300,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 300,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.