7 research outputs found

    Influence of the normalisation factor on mucin secretion detection levels

    No full text
    A, B and C Panels show classification views of a mouse tissue section after analysis. The red surface represents the area covered by mucin (our nominator), and the light green surface represents the tissue area used for normalisation purposes (our denominator). We used at first the whole tissue section (excluding the air space) as shown in panel A, which generated the results shown in the graph D. We then excluded alveolar tissue as shown in panel B, and generated the results shown in the graph E. At last we excluded inflammatory infiltrate as shown in panel C, and generated the results shown in the graph F.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Object orientated automated image analysis: quantitative and qualitative estimation of inflammation in mouse lung"</p><p>http://www.diagnosticpathology.org/content/3/S1/S16</p><p>Diagnostic Pathology 2008;3(Suppl 1):S16-S16.</p><p>Published online 15 Jul 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2500097.</p><p></p

    Comparison between manual and computerised assessment of pulmonary inflammation in mouse receiving House Dust Mite (HDM) extracts over 5 weeks

    No full text
    A. Manual assessment of pulmonary inflammation in mouse performed by a pathologist. B. Automated assessment of pulmonary inflammation done by combining 3 signs of inflammation: total number of neutrophils detected, total number of eosinophils detected and total area covered by inflammatory cells.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Object orientated automated image analysis: quantitative and qualitative estimation of inflammation in mouse lung"</p><p>http://www.diagnosticpathology.org/content/3/S1/S16</p><p>Diagnostic Pathology 2008;3(Suppl 1):S16-S16.</p><p>Published online 15 Jul 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2500097.</p><p></p

    Reclassification of the compounds CPA, TAA, and WY.

    No full text
    <p>(<b>A</b>) Points indicate treatment groups which were originally represented by a vector containing the fold-changes of all signature genes and then transformed to its two principal components. Here, the informative genes for discriminating GC vs. NGC after 3 days of repeated dosing were used. Groups of male animals are drawn as squares and female ones as circles. The fill color of the points indicates the compound class. Polygons indicate the convex hulls of clusters corresponding to either male or female mice treated with a certain class of compounds. (<b>B</b>) Similar plot as in (A), but the multi-gene signature for GC vs. NGC classification after 14 days was used here. (<b>C</b>) The heatmap provides a graphical representation of the fold-changes of 15 selected signature genes from the 14-day signature for GC vs. NGC classification. Rows correspond to genes and columns to treatment groups. Upregulated genes are colored in red and downregulated ones in green. The colorbar on top indicates the corresponding compound classes. (<b>D</b>) Heatmaps showing confidence of predictions made by diverse C vs. NC classifiers for male (M) and female (F) mice treated with CPA, TAA and WY for 3 days (left heatmap) or 14 days (right heatmap). (<b>E</b>) Similar illustration as in (D) showing prediction outcomes of GC vs. NGC classifiers.</p

    Overview of compounds used for training and evaluation of classifiers.

    No full text
    <p>The table lists all compounds along with their carcinogenicity class and CAS Registry Number. Corn oil (CO) or 0.1% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) was used as vehicle. Doses were selected for each compound based on the tumorigenic dose rate 50 (TD<sub>50</sub>), long-term animal studies leading to liver cancer known from the literature or initial dose range-finding studies. After a dosing period of 3 or 14 days the mouse livers were subjected to gene expression analysis using an Affymetrix platform. Two treatment groups, each comprising 5–6 male and female mice, respectively, were examined for each compound, dose and point of time. Time matched control groups were included for both vehicles. Each treatment group has a unique group ID which is composed of the compound short name, the group number and the sex (Female or Male).</p

    Performance comparison with signatures known from the literature.

    No full text
    <p>(<b>A</b>) The grouped bar plots depict the area under the ROC curves obtained for novel and known signatures for the separation of C and NC after 3 days of treatment. For this purpose, the performance of diverse classifiers was evaluated by a 3-fold cross-validation. Each bar corresponds to a certain classifier (see legend) and each group of bars refers to a certain signature. The horizontal dashed line indicates the performance that would have been achieved by random guessing. The adjacent Venn diagrams illustrate informative genes common between signatures. (<b>B</b>) Same plots as in (A), but for C vs. NC classification after 14 days of repeated dosing. (<b>C</b>) Mean ROC scores and signature overlaps for GC vs. NGC classification after 3 days of treatment. (<b>D</b>) Same plots as in (C), but for GC vs. NGC classification after 14 days of repeated dosing.</p

    Classification results obtained for different signatures.

    No full text
    <p>(<b>A</b>) The four heatmaps show the predictions resulting from diverse binary classifiers for the discrimination of C from NC after 3 days (left two heatmaps) or 14 days (right two heatmaps) of repeated dosing. For each dosing time two heatmaps are depicted which correspond to male and female mice, respectively. The rows correspond to different classifiers and the columns to different treatment groups. The continuous prediction scores, returned from the classifiers, were transformed to confidence scores between 0 and 1, which provide an estimate of the probability of class C. The colorbar on top shows the true class annotation. The black vertical lines separate the test samples from the three folds of cross-validation. (<b>B</b>) Heatmaps illustrating the classification outcome of diverse predictors to distinguish GC from NGC based on characteristic gene expression profiles observed in male and female mouse liver samples after 3 or 14 days of administration. KNN, K-Nearest Neighbor; SVM, Support Vector Machine; PAM, Prediction Analysis for Microarrays.</p

    Accuracy and stability of signatures for compound classification.

    No full text
    <p>(<b>A</b>) The line plots depict the mean performance of C vs. NC classification after 3 days of repeated dosing, which was achieved based on gene sets extracted with different feature selection methods. Each curve corresponds to a feature selection method and the performance was assessed depending on the number of genes selected as informative features. The prediction accuracy was assessed on the samples left out from 25 random subsamplings of the dataset (bootstraps), each containing 90% of the data, and measured in terms of area under the ROC curve. The inset bar plot depicts the ROC scores averaged across bootstraps and signature sizes. (<b>B</b>) Performance of C vs. NC classification after 14 days of treatment illustrated as in (A). (<b>C</b>) The correspondence of the extracted C vs. NC gene sets across 25 bootstraps was assessed based on the Kuncheva stability index (KI) for each of the 4 employed feature selection methods. The KI was then for each method plotted against the number of selected signature genes. (<b>D</b>) Robustness of signatures for C vs. NC classification after 14 days of treatment illustrated as in (C). (<b>E, F</b>) Prediction accuracy achieved with signatures for GC vs. NGC classification after (E) 3 days and (F) 14 days of repeated dosing, respectively, depicted as in (A). (<b>G, H</b>) Similar illustration as in (C) showing robustness of signatures for GC vs. NGC classification after (G) 3 days and (H) 14 days of administration, respectively.</p
    corecore