Training Nuclei Detection Algorithms with Simple Annotations

Background: Generating good training datasets is essential for machine learning-based nuclei detection methods. However, creating exhaustive nuclei contour annotations, to derive optimal training data from, is often infeasible. Methods: We compared different approaches for training nuclei detection methods solely based on nucleus center markers. Such markers contain less accurate information, especially with regard to nuclear boundaries, but can be produced much easier and in greater quantities. The approaches use different automated sample extraction methods to derive image positions and class labels from nucleus center markers. In addition, the approaches use different automated sample selection methods to improve the detection quality of the classification algorithm and reduce the run time of the training process. We evaluated the approaches based on a previously published generic nuclei detection algorithm and a set of Ki-67-stained breast cancer images. Results: A Voronoi tessellation-based sample extraction method produced the best performing training sets. However, subsampling of the extracted training samples was crucial. Even simple class balancing improved the detection quality considerably. The incorporation of active learning led to a further increase in detection quality. Conclusions: With appropriate sample extraction and selection methods, nuclei detection algorithms trained on the basis of simple center marker annotations can produce comparable quality to algorithms trained on conventionally created training sets.

[1]  J P Vink,et al.  Efficient nucleus detector in histopathology images , 2013, Journal of microscopy.

[2]  Burr Settles,et al.  Active Learning Literature Survey , 2009 .

[3]  Philippe Andrey,et al.  A generic classification-based method for segmentation of nuclei in 3D images of early embryos , 2014, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  Morten Fjeld,et al.  Scale Stain: Multi-Resolution Feature Enhancement in Pathology Visualization , 2016, ArXiv.

[5]  Nasir M. Rajpoot,et al.  Locality Sensitive Deep Learning for Detection and Classification of Nuclei in Routine Colon Cancer Histology Images , 2016, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[6]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets , 2004, SKDD.

[7]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  A Deep Convolutional Neural Network for segmenting and classifying epithelial and stromal regions in histopathological images , 2016, Neurocomputing.

[8]  Andrew Janowczyk,et al.  Deep learning for digital pathology image analysis: A comprehensive tutorial with selected use cases , 2016, Journal of pathology informatics.

[9]  Mykola Pechenizkiy,et al.  The impact of sample reduction on PCA-based feature extraction for supervised learning , 2006, SAC '06.

[10]  Lin Yang,et al.  An Automatic Learning-Based Framework for Robust Nucleus Segmentation , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Horst K. Hahn,et al.  A generic nuclei detection method for histopathological breast images , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  C. Lawton,et al.  Tumor-Infiltrating CD8+ Lymphocytes Predict Clinical Outcome in Breast Cancer , 2012 .

[13]  Rasmus Larsen,et al.  Learning histopathological patterns , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[14]  Stephen M. Omohundro,et al.  Efficient Algorithms with Neural Network Behavior , 1987, Complex Syst..

[15]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Learning to Detect Cells Using Non-overlapping Extremal Regions , 2012, MICCAI.

[16]  Jon Louis Bentley,et al.  Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching , 1975, CACM.

[17]  Laura H. Tang,et al.  Objective Quantification of the Ki67 Proliferative Index in Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Gastroenteropancreatic System: A Comparison of Digital Image Analysis With Manual Methods , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[18]  V. Speirs,et al.  New perspectives into the biological and clinical relevance of oestrogen receptors in the human breast , 2007, The Journal of pathology.