Visual parameter optimisation for biomedical image processing

Background: Biomedical image processing methods require users to optimise input parameters to ensure high quality output. This presents two challenges. First, it is difficult to optimise multiple input parameters for multiple input images. Second, it is difficult to achieve an understanding of underlying algorithms, in particular, relationships between input and output. Results: We present a visualisation method that transforms users’ ability to understand algorithm behaviour by integrating input and output, and by supporting exploration of their relationships. We discuss its application to a colour deconvolution technique for stained histology images and show how it enabled a domain expert to identify suitable parameter values for the deconvolution of two types of images, and metrics to quantify deconvolution performance. It also enabled a breakthrough in understanding by invalidating an underlying assumption about the algorithm. Conclusions: The visualisation method presented here provides analysis capability for multiple inputs and outputs in biomedical image processing that is not supported by previous analysis software. The analysis supported by our method is not feasible with conventional trial-and-error approaches

Local and central evaluation of HER2 positivity and clinical outcome in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancer: results from the AGMT GASTRIC-5 Registry

Trastuzumab in combination with a platinum and fluorouracil is the treatment of choice for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Pathological assessment of the HER2 status in gastric/GEJ cancer, however, still remains difficult. However, it is a crucial prerequisite for optimal treatment. The GASTRIC-5 registry was designed as an observational, multi-center research initiative comparing local and central HER2 testing. HER2 status was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in equivocal cases (IHC score 2+) by additional in-situ hybridization. Between May 2011 and August 2018, tumor samples of 183 patients were tested in local and central pathology laboratories, respectively. Central testing revealed HER2 positivity in 38 samples (21%). Discordant HER2 results were found in 12% (22 out of 183) with locally HER2 positive/centrally HER2 negative results (9%, 17 out of 183), exceeding locally HER2 negative/centrally HER2 positive results (3%, 5 out of 183). Centrally confirmed HER2 positive patients receiving trastuzumab-based palliative first-line therapy showed a longer median overall survival compared to centrally HER2 positive patients not receiving trastuzumab (17.7 months (95% CI: 10,870-24,530) vs. 6.9 months (95% CI: 3.980-9.820), p = 0.016). The findings of the GASTRIC-5 registry corroborate the challenge of HER2 testing in gastric/GEJ cancer and highlight the necessity for central quality control to optimize individual treatment options. Centrally HER2 positive patients not receiving trastuzumab had the worst outcome in a Western real-world gastric/GEJ cancer cohort

Global Distribution of Human-Associated Fecal Genetic Markers in Reference Samples from Six Continents

Numerous bacterial genetic markers are available for the molecular detection of human sources of fecal pollution in environmental waters. However, widespread application is hindered by a lack of knowledge regarding geographical stability, limiting implementation to a small number of well-characterized regions. This study investigates the geographic distribution of five human-associated genetic markers (HF183/BFDrev, HF183/BacR287, BacHum-UCD, BacH, and Lachno2) in municipal wastewaters (raw and treated) from 29 urban and rural wastewater treatment plants (750-4»400»000 population equivalents) from 13 countries spanning six continents. In addition, genetic markers were tested against 280 human and nonhuman fecal samples from domesticated, agricultural and wild animal sources. Findings revealed that all genetic markers are present in consistently high concentrations in raw (median log10 7.2-8.0 marker equivalents (ME) 100 mL-1) and biologically treated wastewater samples (median log10 4.6-6.0 ME 100 mL-1) regardless of location and population. The false positive rates of the various markers in nonhuman fecal samples ranged from 5% to 47%. Results suggest that several genetic markers have considerable potential for measuring human-associated contamination in polluted environmental waters. This will be helpful in water quality monitoring, pollution modeling and health risk assessment (as demonstrated by QMRAcatch) to guide target-oriented water safety management across the globe.Fil: Mayer, René E.. Vienna University of Technology; Austria. Interuniversity Cooperation Centre for Water and Health; AustriaFil: Reischer, Georg. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Ixenmaier, Simone K.. Vienna University of Technology; Austria. Interuniversity Cooperation Centre for Water and Health; AustriaFil: Derx, Julia. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Blaschke, Alfred Paul. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Ebdon, James E.. University of Brighton; Reino UnidoFil: Linke, Rita. Vienna University of Technology; Austria. Interuniversity Cooperation Centre Water And Health; AustriaFil: Egle, Lukas. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Ahmed, Warish. Csiro Land And Water; AustraliaFil: Blanch, Anicet R.. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Byamukama, Denis. Makerere University; UgandaFil: Savill, Marion. Affordable Water Limited;Fil: Mushi, Douglas. Sokoine University Of Agriculture; TanzaniaFil: Cristobal, Hector Antonio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Salta. Instituto de Investigaciones para la Industria Química. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Facultad de Ingeniería. Instituto de Investigaciones para la Industria Química; ArgentinaFil: Edge, Thomas A.. Canada Centre for Inland Waters. Environment and Climate Change Canada; CanadáFil: Schade, Margit A.. Bavarian Environment Agency; AlemaniaFil: Aslan, Asli. Georgia Southern University; Estados UnidosFil: Brooks, Yolanda M.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Sommer, Regina. Interuniversity Cooperation Centre Water And Health; Austria. Medizinische Universitat Wien; AustriaFil: Masago, Yoshifumi. Tohoku University; JapónFil: Sato, Maria I.. Cia. Ambiental do Estado de Sao Paulo. Departamento de Análises Ambientais; BrasilFil: Taylor, Huw D.. University of Brighton; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Joan B.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wuertz, Stefan. Nanyang Technological University. Singapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering; SingapurFil: Shanks, Orin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Piringer, Harald. Vrvis Research Center; AustriaFil: Mach, Robert L.. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Savio, Domenico. Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences; AustriaFil: Zessner, Matthias. Vienna University of Technology; AustriaFil: Farnleitner, Andreas. Vienna University of Technology; Austria. Interuniversity Cooperation Centre Water And Health; Austria. Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences; Austri