Alexander Bartel

Andreas Haghofer, Eda Parlak, Alexander Bartel et al.

Variation in nuclear size and shape is an important criterion of malignancy for many tumor types; however, categorical estimates by pathologists have poor reproducibility. Measurements of nuclear characteristics (morphometry) can improve reproducibility, but manual methods are time consuming. The aim of this study was to explore the limitations of estimates and develop alternative morphometric solutions for canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCT). We assessed the following nuclear evaluation methods for measurement accuracy, reproducibility, and prognostic utility: 1) anisokaryosis (karyomegaly) estimates by 11 pathologists; 2) gold standard manual morphometry of at least 100 nuclei; 3) practicable manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei by 9 pathologists; and 4) automated morphometry using a deep learning-based segmentation algorithm. The study dataset comprised 96 ccMCT with available outcome information. The study dataset comprised 96 ccMCT with available outcome information. Inter-rater reproducibility of karyomegaly estimates was low ($κ$ = 0.226), while it was good (ICC = 0.654) for practicable morphometry of the standard deviation (SD) of nuclear size. As compared to gold standard manual morphometry (AUC = 0.839, 95% CI: 0.701 - 0.977), the prognostic value (tumor-specific survival) of SDs of nuclear area for practicable manual morphometry (12 nuclei) and automated morphometry were high with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.737 - 0.991) and 0.943 (95% CI: 0.889 - 0.996), respectively. This study supports the use of manual morphometry with stratified sampling of 12 nuclei and algorithmic morphometry to overcome the poor reproducibility of estimates.

Christof A. Bertram, Jonas Ammeling, Alexander Bartel et al.

Deep learning-based automated image analysis (DL-AIA) has been shown to outperform trained pathologists in tasks related to feature quantification. Related to these capacities the use of DL-AIA tools is currently extending from proof-of-principle studies to routine applications such as patient samples (diagnostic pathology), regulatory safety assessment (toxicologic pathology), and recurrent research tasks. To ensure that DL-AIA applications are safe and reliable, it is critical to conduct a thorough and objective generalization performance assessment (i.e., the ability of the algorithm to accurately predict patterns of interest) and possibly evaluate model robustness (i.e., the algorithm's capacity to maintain predictive accuracy on images from different sources). In this article, we review the practices for performance assessment in veterinary pathology publications by which two approaches were identified: 1) Exclusive visual performance control (i.e. eyeballing of algorithmic predictions) plus validation of the models application utilizing secondary performance indices, and 2) Statistical performance control (alongside the other methods), which requires a dataset creation and separation of an hold-out test set prior to model training. This article compares the strengths and weaknesses of statistical and visual performance control methods. Furthermore, we discuss relevant considerations for rigorous statistical performance evaluation including metric selection, test dataset image composition, ground truth label quality, resampling methods such as bootstrapping, statistical comparison of multiple models, and evaluation of model stability. It is our conclusion that visual and statistical evaluation have complementary strength and a combination of both provides the greatest insight into the DL model's performance and sources of error.

Frauke Wilm, Christof A. Bertram, Christian Marzahl et al.

Density of mitotic figures in histologic sections is a prognostically relevant characteristic for many tumours. Due to high inter-pathologist variability, deep learning-based algorithms are a promising solution to improve tumour prognostication. Pathologists are the gold standard for database development, however, labelling errors may hamper development of accurate algorithms. In the present work we evaluated the benefit of multi-expert consensus (n = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) on algorithmic performance. While training with individual databases resulted in highly variable F$_1$ scores, performance was notably increased and more consistent when using the consensus of three annotators. Adding more annotators only resulted in minor improvements. We conclude that databases by few pathologists and high label accuracy may be the best compromise between high algorithmic performance and time investment.