Source author record

Marco Fragoso

Marco Fragoso appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Computer Vision eess.IV Human-Computer Interaction

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2021arXiv

Dataset on Bi- and Multi-Nucleated Tumor Cells in Canine Cutaneous Mast Cell Tumors

Tumor cells with two nuclei (binucleated cells, BiNC) or more nuclei (multinucleated cells, MuNC) indicate an increased amount of cellular genetic material which is thought to facilitate oncogenesis, tumor progression and treatment resistance. In canine cutaneous mast cell tumors (ccMCT), binucleation and multinucleation are parameters used in cytologic and histologic grading schemes (respectively) which correlate with poor patient outcome. For this study, we created the first open source data-set with 19,983 annotations of BiNC and 1,416 annotations of MuNC in 32 histological whole slide images of ccMCT. Labels were created by a pathologist and an algorithmic-aided labeling approach with expert review of each generated candidate. A state-of-the-art deep learning-based model yielded an $F_1$ score of 0.675 for BiNC and 0.623 for MuNC on 11 test whole slide images. In regions of interest ($2.37 mm^2$) extracted from these test images, 6 pathologists had an object detection performance between 0.270 - 0.526 for BiNC and 0.316 - 0.622 for MuNC, while our model archived an $F_1$ score of 0.667 for BiNC and 0.685 for MuNC. This open dataset can facilitate development of automated image analysis for this task and may thereby help to promote standardization of this facet of histologic tumor prognostication.

preprint2020arXiv

Are fast labeling methods reliable? A case study of computer-aided expert annotations on microscopy slides

Deep-learning-based pipelines have shown the potential to revolutionalize microscopy image diagnostics by providing visual augmentations to a trained pathology expert. However, to match human performance, the methods rely on the availability of vast amounts of high-quality labeled data, which poses a significant challenge. To circumvent this, augmented labeling methods, also known as expert-algorithm-collaboration, have recently become popular. However, potential biases introduced by this operation mode and their effects for training neuronal networks are not entirely understood. This work aims to shed light on some of the effects by providing a case study for three pathologically relevant diagnostic settings. Ten trained pathology experts performed a labeling tasks first without and later with computer-generated augmentation. To investigate different biasing effects, we intentionally introduced errors to the augmentation. Furthermore, we developed a novel loss function which incorporates the experts' annotation consensus in the training of a deep learning classifier. In total, the pathology experts annotated 26,015 cells on 1,200 images in this novel annotation study. Backed by this extensive data set, we found that the consensus of multiple experts and the deep learning classifier accuracy, was significantly increased in the computer-aided setting, versus the unaided annotation. However, a significant percentage of the deliberately introduced false labels was not identified by the experts. Additionally, we showed that our loss function profited from multiple experts and outperformed conventional loss functions. At the same time, systematic errors did not lead to a deterioration of the trained classifier accuracy. Furthermore, a classifier trained with annotations from a single expert with computer-aided support can outperform the combined annotations from up to nine experts.