On the concept of objectivity in digital image analysis in pathology

References

• Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Wiberg MK, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Boné B. Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 1207–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson AG, Addis BJ, Bharucha H, Clelland CA, Corrin B, Gibbs AR, et al Inter-observer variation between pathologists in diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Thorax 2004; 59: 500–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujan O, Khattab A, Oliver RJ, Roberts SA, Thakker N, Sloan P. Why oral histopathology suffers inter-observer variability on grading oral epithelial dysplasia: An attempt to understand the sources of variation. Oral Oncol 2007; 43: 224–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital Image Processing. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002; 567–642.
   Google Scholar
• Kittler J, Illingworth J. On threshold selection using clustering criteria. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1985; 15: 652–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1979; 9: 62–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolaos N, Dimitrios V. Binarization of pre-filtered historical manuscripts. Int J Intelligent Computing Cybernetics 2009; 2: 148–174.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman H. On the encoding of arbitrary geometric configurations. IRE Trans Electronic Computers 1961; 10: 260–268.
   Google Scholar
• Kulpa Z. Area and perimeter measurement of blobs in discrete binary pictures. Computer Graphics Image Processing 1977; 6: 434–454.
   Google Scholar
• Sladoje N, Lindblad J. High-precision boundary length estimation by utilizing gray-level information. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence 2009; 31: 357–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonka M, Hlavac V, Boyle R. Image Processing, Analysis and Machine Vision. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993: 192–254.
   Google Scholar
• Varberg DE. Pick's theorem revisited. Am Math Monthly 1985; 92: 584–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambros RA, Trost RC, Campbell AY, Lambert WC. Prognostic value of morphometry in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1989; 20: 215–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris HJ, Becker RL, Mikel UV. A comparative morphometric and cytometric study of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1989; 20: 219–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil J. Image analysis in anatomic pathology: what are the issues? Hum Pathol 1989; 20: 203–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagoe R, Steel JH, Vucicevic V, et al Observer variation in quantification of immunocytochemistry by image analysis. Histochem J 1991; 23: 541–547.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gokhale S, Rosen D, Sneige N, et al Assessment of two automated imaging systems in evaluating estrogen receptor status in breast carcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2007; 15: 451–455.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bamford P. Empirical comparison of cell segmentation algorithms using an annotated dataset. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP 2003) 2003; 2: 1073–1076.
   Google Scholar
• Cosatto E, Miller M, Graf H, Meyer J. Grading nuclear pleomorphism on histological micrographs. Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2008) 2008; 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Bacus SS, Goldschmidt R, Chin D, Moran G, Weinberg D, Bacus JW. Biological grading of breast cancer using antibodies to proliferating cells and other markers. Am J Pathol 1989; 135: 783–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maximova OA, Taffs RE, Pomeroy KL, Piccardo P, Asher DM. Computerized morphometric analysis of pathological prion protein deposition in scrapie-infected hamster brain. J Histochem Cytochem 2006; 54: 97–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenkvist B, Westman-Naeser S, Holmquist J, et al Computerized nuclear morphometry as an objective method for characterizing human cancer cell populations. Cancer Res 1978; 38: 4688–4697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mofidi R, Walsh R, Ridgway PF, et al Objective measurement of breast cancer oestrogen receptor status through digital image analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29: 20–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagoe R, Sowter C, Slavin G. Shape and texture analysis of liver cell nuclei in hepatomas by computer aided microscopy. J Clin Pathol 1984; 37: 755–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rexhepaj E, Brennan DJ, Holloway P, et al Novel image analysis approach for quantifying expression of nuclear proteins assessed by immunohistochemistry: application to measurement of oestrogen and progesterone receptor levels in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostermeier GC, Sargeant GA, Yandell TBS, Parrish JJ. Measurement of bovine sperm nuclear shape using Fourier harmonic amplitudes. J Androl 2001; 22: 584–594.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nabi G, Seth A, Dinda AK, Gupta NP. Computer based receptogram approach: an objective way of assessing immunohistochemistry of androgen receptor staining and its correlation with hormonal response in metastatic carcinoma of prostate. J Clin Pathol 2004; 57: 146–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruifrok AC, Johnston DA. Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2001; 23: 291–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruifrok AC, Katz RL, Johnston DA. Comparison of quantification of histochemical staining by hue-saturation-intensity (HSI) trans- formation and color-deconvolution. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2003; 11: 85–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grube D. Constants and variables in immunohistochemistry. Arch Histol Cytol 2004; 67: 115–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ermert L, Hocke AC, Duncker H-R, Seeger W, Ermert M, Comparison of different detection methods in quantitative microdensitometry. Am J Pathol 2001; 158: 407–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar