3.8 Proceedings Paper

TEXTURE ENHANCED GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORK FOR STAIN NORMALISATION IN HISTOPATHOLOGY IMAGES

Publisher

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/ISBI48211.2021.9433860

Keywords

Stain normalisation; Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks; Content loss; IDH classification

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [FT190100623]
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [1160760]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT190100623] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1160760] Funding Source: NHMRC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Digital histopathology image analysis has become a hot research topic, with stain variation posing a significant challenge. This work introduces a novel approach using a texture enhanced pix2pix generative adversarial network to address stain normalization without the need for reference images, achieving excellent results in IDH mutation status classification.
Digitised histopathology image analysis has drawn researchers' attention over recent years. However, stain variation due to several factors can be a significant hurdle for the diagnosis process. Stain normalisation can be used as an effective method to address this issue but most existing methods require careful selection of a reference image. In this work, we propose a texture enhanced pix2pix generative adversarial network (TESGAN), which takes higher contrast hematoxylin components as input and includes a novel loss function to guide the generator to produce higher quality images without the need for reference images. We implement our method as a pre-processing approach for an isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status classification task. Evaluated on The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) glioma cohorts, the proposed model achieves Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.967, which substantially outperforms the current state-of-the-art.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available