Biocomputing 2022 2021
DOI: 10.1142/9789811250477_0017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mixed Effects Machine Learning Models for Colon Cancer Metastasis Prediction using Spatially Localized Immuno-Oncology Markers

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The primary dataset utilized in this study was acquired from four pathologic T Stage-III (pT3) matched (pTNM system) colorectal cancer patients at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, determined through a retrospective review of pathology reports from 2016 to 2019 following IRB review and approval. These four patients were drawn from a set of 36 patients included in a prior study 15 – half of the patients had concurrent tumor metastasis (slides A1 and B1 had tumor metastasis; slides C1 and D1 did not have tumor metastasis) and were otherwise matched on age, sex, tumor grade, tissue size, mismatch repair (MMR) status, and tumor site using iterative patient resampling with t-tests for continuous variables and fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. The four patients were subselected to restrict the tumor site (three in the right colon, one in the transverse colon), grade (three grade 1, one grade 2), node status (two metastasis cases with N-1a), and account for differences in sex (50% female within both the non-metastasis and metastasis groups).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary dataset utilized in this study was acquired from four pathologic T Stage-III (pT3) matched (pTNM system) colorectal cancer patients at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, determined through a retrospective review of pathology reports from 2016 to 2019 following IRB review and approval. These four patients were drawn from a set of 36 patients included in a prior study 15 – half of the patients had concurrent tumor metastasis (slides A1 and B1 had tumor metastasis; slides C1 and D1 did not have tumor metastasis) and were otherwise matched on age, sex, tumor grade, tissue size, mismatch repair (MMR) status, and tumor site using iterative patient resampling with t-tests for continuous variables and fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. The four patients were subselected to restrict the tumor site (three in the right colon, one in the transverse colon), grade (three grade 1, one grade 2), node status (two metastasis cases with N-1a), and account for differences in sex (50% female within both the non-metastasis and metastasis groups).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…level scores and other demographic/specimen characteristics into an Atypia Burden Score (ABS), accounting for repeat measures by patient [58][59][60][61][62][63][64] .…”
Section: Classifier Development-machine Learning Classifier Which Int...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sections were stained with fluorescent-labeled, IF, antibodies for the following markers: 1) tumor/epithelial (PanCK), immune cells (CD45), and nuclei (SYTO13). These IF stains were initially acquired for a previously published study on spatial immune markers of metastasis, which utilized the GeoMX Digital Spatial Profiler (DSP, Nanostring Technologies, Seattle, WA) for image scanning into 16-bit unsigned color (one channel per stain) TIFF format images (Levy et al, 2022). After IF staining, the same sections were stained for H&E (without requiring destaining as the chemical reagents of the H&E minimally interacted with the fluorophores) and scanned into WSI using the Aperio AT2 scanner at 20x (8-bit unsigned color).…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%