Cargando…

Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images

Motivation: Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) is a maturating technique of molecular imaging. Confidence in the reproducible quality of IMS data is essential for its integration into routine use. However, the predominant method for assessing quality is visual examination, a time consuming, unstandardi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palmer, Andrew, Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina, Thuné, Mikael, Lavigne, Régis, Guével, Blandine, Dyatlov, Andrey, Vitek, Olga, Pineau, Charles, Borén, Mats, Alexandrov, Theodore
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26072506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv266
_version_ 1782417585975853056
author Palmer, Andrew
Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina
Thuné, Mikael
Lavigne, Régis
Guével, Blandine
Dyatlov, Andrey
Vitek, Olga
Pineau, Charles
Borén, Mats
Alexandrov, Theodore
author_facet Palmer, Andrew
Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina
Thuné, Mikael
Lavigne, Régis
Guével, Blandine
Dyatlov, Andrey
Vitek, Olga
Pineau, Charles
Borén, Mats
Alexandrov, Theodore
author_sort Palmer, Andrew
collection PubMed
description Motivation: Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) is a maturating technique of molecular imaging. Confidence in the reproducible quality of IMS data is essential for its integration into routine use. However, the predominant method for assessing quality is visual examination, a time consuming, unstandardized and non-scalable approach. So far, the problem of assessing the quality has only been marginally addressed and existing measures do not account for the spatial information of IMS data. Importantly, no approach exists for unbiased evaluation of potential quality measures. Results: We propose a novel approach for evaluating potential measures by creating a gold-standard set using collective expert judgements upon which we evaluated image-based measures. To produce a gold standard, we engaged 80 IMS experts, each to rate the relative quality between 52 pairs of ion images from MALDI-TOF IMS datasets of rat brain coronal sections. Experts’ optional feedback on their expertise, the task and the survey showed that (i) they had diverse backgrounds and sufficient expertise, (ii) the task was properly understood, and (iii) the survey was comprehensible. A moderate inter-rater agreement was achieved with Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.5. A gold-standard set of 634 pairs of images with accompanying ratings was constructed and showed a high agreement of 0.85. Eight families of potential measures with a range of parameters and statistical descriptors, giving 143 in total, were evaluated. Both signal-to-noise and spatial chaos-based measures performed highly with a correlation of 0.7 to 0.9 with the gold standard ratings. Moreover, we showed that a composite measure with the linear coefficients (trained on the gold standard with regularized least squares optimization and lasso) showed a strong linear correlation of 0.94 and an accuracy of 0.98 in predicting which image in a pair was of higher quality. Availability and implementation: The anonymized data collected from the survey and the Matlab source code for data processing can be found at: https://github.com/alexandrovteam/IMS_quality. Contact: theodore.alexandrov@embl.de
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4765867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47658672016-03-04 Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images Palmer, Andrew Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina Thuné, Mikael Lavigne, Régis Guével, Blandine Dyatlov, Andrey Vitek, Olga Pineau, Charles Borén, Mats Alexandrov, Theodore Bioinformatics Ismb/Eccb 2015 Proceedings Papers Committee July 10 to July 14, 2015, Dublin, Ireland Motivation: Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) is a maturating technique of molecular imaging. Confidence in the reproducible quality of IMS data is essential for its integration into routine use. However, the predominant method for assessing quality is visual examination, a time consuming, unstandardized and non-scalable approach. So far, the problem of assessing the quality has only been marginally addressed and existing measures do not account for the spatial information of IMS data. Importantly, no approach exists for unbiased evaluation of potential quality measures. Results: We propose a novel approach for evaluating potential measures by creating a gold-standard set using collective expert judgements upon which we evaluated image-based measures. To produce a gold standard, we engaged 80 IMS experts, each to rate the relative quality between 52 pairs of ion images from MALDI-TOF IMS datasets of rat brain coronal sections. Experts’ optional feedback on their expertise, the task and the survey showed that (i) they had diverse backgrounds and sufficient expertise, (ii) the task was properly understood, and (iii) the survey was comprehensible. A moderate inter-rater agreement was achieved with Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.5. A gold-standard set of 634 pairs of images with accompanying ratings was constructed and showed a high agreement of 0.85. Eight families of potential measures with a range of parameters and statistical descriptors, giving 143 in total, were evaluated. Both signal-to-noise and spatial chaos-based measures performed highly with a correlation of 0.7 to 0.9 with the gold standard ratings. Moreover, we showed that a composite measure with the linear coefficients (trained on the gold standard with regularized least squares optimization and lasso) showed a strong linear correlation of 0.94 and an accuracy of 0.98 in predicting which image in a pair was of higher quality. Availability and implementation: The anonymized data collected from the survey and the Matlab source code for data processing can be found at: https://github.com/alexandrovteam/IMS_quality. Contact: theodore.alexandrov@embl.de Oxford University Press 2015-06-15 2015-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4765867/ /pubmed/26072506 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv266 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Ismb/Eccb 2015 Proceedings Papers Committee July 10 to July 14, 2015, Dublin, Ireland
Palmer, Andrew
Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina
Thuné, Mikael
Lavigne, Régis
Guével, Blandine
Dyatlov, Andrey
Vitek, Olga
Pineau, Charles
Borén, Mats
Alexandrov, Theodore
Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title_full Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title_fullStr Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title_full_unstemmed Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title_short Using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
title_sort using collective expert judgements to evaluate quality measures of mass spectrometry images
topic Ismb/Eccb 2015 Proceedings Papers Committee July 10 to July 14, 2015, Dublin, Ireland
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4765867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26072506
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv266
work_keys_str_mv AT palmerandrew usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT ovchinnikovaekaterina usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT thunemikael usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT lavigneregis usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT guevelblandine usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT dyatlovandrey usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT vitekolga usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT pineaucharles usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT borenmats usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages
AT alexandrovtheodore usingcollectiveexpertjudgementstoevaluatequalitymeasuresofmassspectrometryimages