Skip to main content

Showing 1–4 of 4 results for author: Kiupel, M

Searching in archive cs. Search in all archives.
.
  1. arXiv:2401.06169  [pdf

    q-bio.BM cs.CV cs.LG

    Deep Learning model predicts the c-Kit-11 mutational status of canine cutaneous mast cell tumors by HE stained histological slides

    Authors: Chloé Puget, Jonathan Ganz, Julian Ostermaier, Thomas Konrad, Eda Parlak, Christof Albert Bertram, Matti Kiupel, Katharina Breininger, Marc Aubreville, Robert Klopfleisch

    Abstract: Numerous prognostic factors are currently assessed histopathologically in biopsies of canine mast cell tumors to evaluate clinical behavior. In addition, PCR analysis of the c-Kit exon 11 mutational status is often performed to evaluate the potential success of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. This project aimed at training deep learning models (DLMs) to identify the c-Kit-11 mutational status… ▽ More

    Submitted 2 January, 2024; originally announced January 2024.

    Comments: 17 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables

    ACM Class: J.3

  2. arXiv:2309.15031  [pdf

    cs.CV

    Nuclear Pleomorphism in Canine Cutaneous Mast Cell Tumors: Comparison of Reproducibility and Prognostic Relevance between Estimates, Manual Morphometry and Algorithmic Morphometry

    Authors: Andreas Haghofer, Eda Parlak, Alexander Bartel, Taryn A. Donovan, Charles-Antoine Assenmacher, Pompei Bolfa, Michael J. Dark, Andrea Fuchs-Baumgartinger, Andrea Klang, Kathrin Jäger, Robert Klopfleisch, Sophie Merz, Barbara Richter, F. Yvonne Schulman, Hannah Janout, Jonathan Ganz, Josef Scharinger, Marc Aubreville, Stephan M. Winkler, Matti Kiupel, Christof A. Bertram

    Abstract: 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 sol… ▽ More

    Submitted 23 May, 2024; v1 submitted 26 September, 2023; originally announced September 2023.

  3. arXiv:2212.07721  [pdf, other

    eess.IV cs.CV

    Deep Learning-Based Automatic Assessment of AgNOR-scores in Histopathology Images

    Authors: Jonathan Ganz, Karoline Lipnik, Jonas Ammeling, Barbara Richter, Chloé Puget, Eda Parlak, Laura Diehl, Robert Klopfleisch, Taryn A. Donovan, Matti Kiupel, Christof A. Bertram, Katharina Breininger, Marc Aubreville

    Abstract: Nucleolar organizer regions (NORs) are parts of the DNA that are involved in RNA transcription. Due to the silver affinity of associated proteins, argyrophilic NORs (AgNORs) can be visualized using silver-based staining. The average number of AgNORs per nucleus has been shown to be a prognostic factor for predicting the outcome of many tumors. Since manual detection of AgNORs is laborious, automat… ▽ More

    Submitted 15 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

    Comments: 6 pages, 2 figures, 1 table

  4. How Many Annotators Do We Need? -- A Study on the Influence of Inter-Observer Variability on the Reliability of Automatic Mitotic Figure Assessment

    Authors: Frauke Wilm, Christof A. Bertram, Christian Marzahl, Alexander Bartel, Taryn A. Donovan, Charles-Antoine Assenmacher, Kathrin Becker, Mark Bennett, Sarah Corner, Brieuc Cossic, Daniela Denk, Martina Dettwiler, Beatriz Garcia Gonzalez, Corinne Gurtner, Annika Lehmbecker, Sophie Merz, Stephanie Plog, Anja Schmidt, Rebecca C. Smedley, Marco Tecilla, Tuddow Thaiwong, Katharina Breininger, Matti Kiupel, Andreas Maier, Robert Klopfleisch , et al. (1 additional authors not shown)

    Abstract: 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… ▽ More

    Submitted 8 January, 2021; v1 submitted 4 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

    Comments: Due to data inconsistencies experiments had to be repeated with a reduced number of annotators (17 in version 1). All findings of the previous version were reproducible. 7 pages, 2 figures, accepted at BVM workshop 2021