DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/jbtr.v9i3.18554

Comparative Analysis of Kidney Histomorphometry Utilizing Two Distinct Image Processing Software

1Histology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Indonesia

2Patology Anatomy Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Indonesia

Received: 8 Jun 2023; Revised: 7 Nov 2023; Accepted: 21 Nov 2023; Available online: 31 Dec 2023; Published: 31 Dec 2023.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract
ABSTRACT

Background: Histopathological examination is critical to evaluate tissue condition. An accurate assessment is necessary for diagnosis establishment. Nowadays, both quantitative and qualitative scoring are enhanced with computer-assisted image analysis to reduce bias. Various software was developed to assist in image analysis. The question of whether the measurement results from one software will be comparable to those from another software may come up, given the wide variety of software options. Nevertheless, this subject is only occasionally discussed.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the measurement results from Fiji and QuPath software in kidney histomorphometry.

Methods: Normal kidney histological slide was observed. Selected histological structures, including the renal corpuscle area, glomerular area, Bowman space area, inner diameter of proximal, distal, and Henle loop, were measured using QuPath and Fiji software. The measurement results from the two software were compared for value differences and agreement analysis.

Results: The renal corpuscle means the area was 12.7x103 µm2 in QuPath and 12.5 x103 µm2 in Fiji. The glomerular area was 7.8 x103 µm2 for both software. The proximal tubule's inner diameters varied from 18.7 to 150.8 µm. Smaller inner diameters were observed in distal tubules (17.1-80.5 µm) and The Henle loop (15.5-69.6 µm). There was no significant difference in measurement results of particular structures between the compared software (P-value > 0.05). The further confirmational analysis supported the similarity between the two measurement results.

Conclusion: the measurement result of kidney microstructures using QuPath and Fiji were identical.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Kidney; Histology; Computer-assisted; Histomorphometry

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Original Research Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
High Pre-treatment Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte ratio (PLR) Shows Lower Progressive-free Survival and Overall Survival in Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-treated Lung Adenocarcinoma The Effect of Increased Glucose Induction on GSH Levels in Insulin Gaussia Luciferase (iGL) Cells Derived from Rat Pancreatic Beta Cells Comparative Analysis of Kidney Histomorphometry Utilizing Two Distinct Image Processing Software Recalcitrant Incomplete Secukinumab Administration in a Psoriasis Patient Exploring Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pathogenesis through Animal Models: A Systematic Review of Humanized and Pristane-Induced Lupus Mice More recent articles
  1. Klopfleisch R. Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology--a systematic review. BMC Vet Res. 2013;9:123. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-123
  2. Meyerholz DK, Beck AP. Fundamental Concepts for Semiquantitative Tissue Scoring in Translational Research. ILAR J. 2018;59(1):13-7. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ily025
  3. Rueden CT, Schindelin J, Hiner MC, DeZonia BE, Walter AE, Arena ET, et al. ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017;18(1):1-26. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z
  4. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676-82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019
  5. Jones TR, Kang IH, Wheeler DB, Lindquist RA, Papallo A, Sabatini DM, et al. CellProfiler Analyst: data exploration and analysis software for complex image-based screens. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):482. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-482
  6. Piccinini F, Balassa T, Szkalisity A, Molnar C, Paavolainen L, Kujala K, et al. Advanced Cell Classifier: User-Friendly Machine-Learning-Based Software for Discovering Phenotypes in High-Content Imaging Data. Cell Syst. 2017;4(6):651-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2017.05.012
  7. Berg S, Kutra D, Kroeger T, Straehle CN, Kausler BX, Haubold C, et al. ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis. Nat Methods. 2019;16(12):1226-32. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0582-9
  8. Sommer C, Hoefler R, Samwer M, Gerlich DW. A deep learning and novelty detection framework for rapid phenotyping in high-content screening. Mol Biol Cell. 2017;28(23):3428-36. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E17-05-0333
  9. Farahani N, Parwani A, Pantanowitz L. Whole slide imaging in pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2015;7:23-33. doi: 10.2147/PLMI.S59826
  10. Kumar N, Gupta R, Gupta S. Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) in Pathology: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. J Digit Imaging. 2020;33(4):1034-40. doi: 10.1007/s10278-020-00351-z
  11. Rangan GK, Tesch GH. Quantification of renal pathology by image analysis (Methods in Renal Research). Nephrology. 2007;12(6):553-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2007.00855.x
  12. Cho K-O, Lee SH, Jang H-J. Feasibility of fully automated classification of whole slide images based on deep learning. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2019;24(1):89-99. doi: 10.4196/kjpp.2020.24.1.89
  13. Samuel T, Hoy WE, Douglas-Denton R, Hughson MD, Bertram JF. Applicability of the glomerular size distribution coefficient in assessing human glomerular volume: the Weibel and Gomez method revisited. J Anat. 2007;210(5):578-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2007.00715.x
  14. Sakineh A, Armin A. Renal Biopsy Interpretation. In: Muhammed M, Javed IK, editors. Topics in Renal Biopsy and Pathology. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2012. p. 45-64. doi: 10.5772/26316
  15. Turgut D. Measurement of glomerular area in primary glomerular diseases with a digital pathology software. Journal of clinical and experimental investigations. 2021;48(1):9-16. doi: 10.5798/dicletip.887368
  16. Zamami R, Kohagura K, Kinjyo K, Nakamura T, Kinjo T, Yamazato M, et al. The Association between Glomerular Diameter and Secondary Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2021;46(4):433-40. doi: 10.1159/000515528
  17. Morozov D, Parvin N, Charlton JR, Bennett KM. Mapping kidney tubule diameter ex vivo by diffusion MRI. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2021;320(5):F934-F46. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00369.2020
  18. Li Q, Onozato ML, Andrews PM, Chen CW, Paek A, Naphas R, et al. Automated quantification of microstructural dimensions of the human kidney using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Opt Express. 2009;17(18):16000-16. doi: 10.1364/oe.17.016000
  19. Barrett KE, Barman SM, Yuan JXJ, Brooks H. Ganong's review of medical physiology. 26th ed. ed. New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill Education LLC.; 2019
  20. Ortega-Martinez M, Gutierrez-Davila V, Gutierrez-Arenas E, Niderhauser-Garcia A, Cerda-Flores RM, Jaramillo-Rangel G. The Convoluted Tubules of the Nephron Must Be Considered Elliptical, and Not Circular, in Stereological Studies of the Kidney. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2021;46(2):229-35. doi: 10.1159/000515051
  21. Alicelebić S. Proximal convoluted tubules of the rats kidney--a stereological analysis. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2003;3(1):36-9. doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2003.3568

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.