Reproducibility and accuracy of interactive segmentation procedures for image analysis in cytology

The segmentation of nuclear images is a crucial step in the development of procedures using image analysis for the cytological diagnosis of cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reproducibility and accuracy of several interactive segmentation methods which can be used in this context. Four methods were studied: a thresholding‐based method enabling selection of intensity histogram contrast and brightness, manual tracing with a stylus, and arc‐ and ellipse‐fitting routines. Features of nuclear size and shape were derived from nuclei segmented on repeated occasions by several individuals. Variance component models provided a statistical framework for evaluating the intraobserver and interobserver variability of these measurements in terms of their intraclass correlation coefficients. Of the methods tested, the arc‐fitting segmentation method gave the most reproducible results, and thresholding the least. Reproducibility was generally very high both between individuals and for repeated segmentations by a single individual. Accuracies of area measurements for the various methods, as determined with respect to point counting, paralleled the reproducibilities of the methods. Sample size requirements were observed to be more dependent on the biological variability of the tissue sampled than on the particular segmentation method or on the number of individuals performing segmentation.

[1]  Hai-Shan Wu,et al.  Morphological segmentation of textured cell images , 1996 .

[2]  H J Gundersen,et al.  The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology and its prediction * , 1987, Journal of microscopy.

[3]  J. T. W. A. Cornelisse,et al.  Profile boundary length can be overestimated by as much as 41% when using a digitizer tablet , 1984 .

[4]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  R. Østerby,et al.  Optimizing sampling efficiency of stereological studies in biology: or ‘Do more less well!‘ , 1981, Journal of microscopy.

[6]  A M Marchevsky,et al.  Applications of computerized interactive morphometry in pathology: I. Tracings and generation of graphic standards. , 1986, Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology.

[7]  S L Beal,et al.  Sample size determination for confidence intervals on the population mean and on the difference between two population means. , 1989, Biometrics.

[8]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[9]  C. MacAulay,et al.  A comparison of some quick and simple threshold selection methods for stained cells. , 1988, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[10]  W. Reeves Royal Microscopical Society , 1873, Nature.

[11]  J. Barba,et al.  Nuclear diffuseness as a measure of texture: Definition and application to the computer‐assisted diagnosis of parathyroid adenoma and carcinoma , 1994, Journal of microscopy.

[12]  F. Sharkey,et al.  Observer reproducibility during computer-assisted planimetric measurements of nuclear features. , 1985, Human pathology.

[13]  D A Silage,et al.  The use of touch‐sensitive screen in interactive morphometry , 1984, Journal of microscopy.

[14]  D J Foran,et al.  A method for quantitative image assessment based on redundant feature measurements and statistical reasoning. , 1994, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[15]  A W Smeulders,et al.  Measurement issues in morphometry. , 1985, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[16]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[17]  Hai-Shan Wu,et al.  An efficient semi‐automatic algorithm for cell contour extraction , 1995 .

[18]  A. Berger FUNDAMENTALS OF BIOSTATISTICS , 1969 .

[19]  M G Fleming,et al.  Multiparametric Image Cytometry of Nevi and Melanomas , 1993, The American Journal of dermatopathology.

[20]  L M Cruz-Orive,et al.  Measuring error and sampling variation in stereology: comparison of the efficiency of various methods for planar image analysis , 1981, Journal of microscopy.

[21]  J Gil,et al.  Ovarian dysplasia: Nuclear texture analysis , 1993, Cancer.

[22]  G C Yang,et al.  Ultrafast Papanicolaou stain. An alternative preparation for fine needle aspiration cytology. , 1995, Acta cytologica.

[23]  K W Chan,et al.  OBSERVER VARIABILITY IN MICROCOMPUTER‐ASSISTED MORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF NUCLEAR PARAMETERS , 1987, Pathology.

[24]  R. T. DeHoff Sampling of Material and Statistical Analysis in Quantitative Stereology , 1967 .

[25]  J Gil,et al.  Morphometric analysis of benign and malignant adrenal pheochromocytomas. , 1993, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[26]  M Oberholzer,et al.  Evaluation of shape descriptors for the morphometric analysis of cell nuclei. , 1986, Pathology, research and practice.

[27]  P N Furness,et al.  Morphometry in pathology. , 1995, The Journal of pathology.

[28]  G L Wied,et al.  Industrial developments in automated cytology as submitted by their developers. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[29]  Hai-Shan Wu,et al.  Region growing segmentation of textured cell images , 1996 .

[30]  J Barba,et al.  The use of local entropy measures in edge detection for cytological image analysis , 1989, Journal of microscopy.

[31]  J P Rigaut,et al.  Toward objective prognostic grading of prostatic carcinoma using image analysis. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[32]  T. Mattfeldt,et al.  The accuracy of one‐dimensional systematic sampling , 1989 .