Limits...
ARAM: an automated image analysis software to determine rosetting parameters and parasitaemia in Plasmodium samples.

Kudella PW, Moll K, Wahlgren M, Wixforth A, Westerhausen C - Malar. J. (2016)

Bottom Line: The obtained results are compared with standardized manual analysis.Automated rosetting analyzer for micrographs analyses 25 cell objects per second reliably delivering identical results compared to manual analysis.The second, non-malaria specific, analysis mode of ARAM offers the functionality to detect arbitrary objects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Experimental Physics I, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 1, Augsburg, Germany.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Inhibition experiment results. Samples are treated with three different concentrations of inhibitor, compared are results generated by ARAM, operator on images and operator in microscope. Top left parasitaemia: values are similar and their statistical errors overlap. Top right rosetting rate: manual and automated analysis of micrographs correlate better than different manual analysis of the same sample. Bottom left rosette size: the error bar on the ARAM results gives the interquartile range, the grey circle the median value. Bottom right ARAM analysis of rosette size of individual rosettes from samples with different amount of inhibitor delivers a rosette size distribution
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835829&req=5

Fig5: Inhibition experiment results. Samples are treated with three different concentrations of inhibitor, compared are results generated by ARAM, operator on images and operator in microscope. Top left parasitaemia: values are similar and their statistical errors overlap. Top right rosetting rate: manual and automated analysis of micrographs correlate better than different manual analysis of the same sample. Bottom left rosette size: the error bar on the ARAM results gives the interquartile range, the grey circle the median value. Bottom right ARAM analysis of rosette size of individual rosettes from samples with different amount of inhibitor delivers a rosette size distribution

Mentions: To characterize ARAM’s capability to analyse parasitaemia, rosetting rate and rosette sizes in comparison to manual analysis, 100 images are taken from a specimen and analysed by independent operators (in Figs. 4, 5 shown as operator 1–3) as well as the software. Values for RBC and pRBC detected by ARAM are similar to the manually acquired results, shown in Fig. 4. Results for parasitaemia show significant agreement with the manual analysis, as is also confirmed by the Bland–Altman test (see Additional file 3: Figure S3). The error bars mark the statistical error which display the 90 % confidence intervals of the measures and overlap with the manually obtained results. ARAM detects a parasitaemia of 4.81 % whereas the operators count 4.75, 4.98 and 4.75 %. The statistical error is about 0.63 % each time. For the rosetting rate in Fig. 4 ARAM and the operator’s results are akin (ARAM 58.70 ± 6.70 %; operators 63.09, 59.03, 63.51 %). The rosette sizes are in good accordance within ARAM’s error range, although slightly larger deviations can be seen. The operators determine the mean rosette size as 3.87, 3.47 and 4.09 while ARAM gets 3.65 with an interquartile range of 1.39. The comparison of determined rosette size is not as obvious as the above mentioned measures due to technical reasons: ARAM only detects a two dimensional projection of the 3D object, like described above which leads to a less accurate calculation of rosette size than the calculation for the rosetting rate. Overall, the uncertainties are dominated by the statistical error in all cases here. For instance, to decrease the confidence interval to half of its width a sample size of about 12,500 RBC would be necessary, independent of the determination mode (manual or automated).Fig. 4


ARAM: an automated image analysis software to determine rosetting parameters and parasitaemia in Plasmodium samples.

Kudella PW, Moll K, Wahlgren M, Wixforth A, Westerhausen C - Malar. J. (2016)

Inhibition experiment results. Samples are treated with three different concentrations of inhibitor, compared are results generated by ARAM, operator on images and operator in microscope. Top left parasitaemia: values are similar and their statistical errors overlap. Top right rosetting rate: manual and automated analysis of micrographs correlate better than different manual analysis of the same sample. Bottom left rosette size: the error bar on the ARAM results gives the interquartile range, the grey circle the median value. Bottom right ARAM analysis of rosette size of individual rosettes from samples with different amount of inhibitor delivers a rosette size distribution
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835829&req=5

Fig5: Inhibition experiment results. Samples are treated with three different concentrations of inhibitor, compared are results generated by ARAM, operator on images and operator in microscope. Top left parasitaemia: values are similar and their statistical errors overlap. Top right rosetting rate: manual and automated analysis of micrographs correlate better than different manual analysis of the same sample. Bottom left rosette size: the error bar on the ARAM results gives the interquartile range, the grey circle the median value. Bottom right ARAM analysis of rosette size of individual rosettes from samples with different amount of inhibitor delivers a rosette size distribution
Mentions: To characterize ARAM’s capability to analyse parasitaemia, rosetting rate and rosette sizes in comparison to manual analysis, 100 images are taken from a specimen and analysed by independent operators (in Figs. 4, 5 shown as operator 1–3) as well as the software. Values for RBC and pRBC detected by ARAM are similar to the manually acquired results, shown in Fig. 4. Results for parasitaemia show significant agreement with the manual analysis, as is also confirmed by the Bland–Altman test (see Additional file 3: Figure S3). The error bars mark the statistical error which display the 90 % confidence intervals of the measures and overlap with the manually obtained results. ARAM detects a parasitaemia of 4.81 % whereas the operators count 4.75, 4.98 and 4.75 %. The statistical error is about 0.63 % each time. For the rosetting rate in Fig. 4 ARAM and the operator’s results are akin (ARAM 58.70 ± 6.70 %; operators 63.09, 59.03, 63.51 %). The rosette sizes are in good accordance within ARAM’s error range, although slightly larger deviations can be seen. The operators determine the mean rosette size as 3.87, 3.47 and 4.09 while ARAM gets 3.65 with an interquartile range of 1.39. The comparison of determined rosette size is not as obvious as the above mentioned measures due to technical reasons: ARAM only detects a two dimensional projection of the 3D object, like described above which leads to a less accurate calculation of rosette size than the calculation for the rosetting rate. Overall, the uncertainties are dominated by the statistical error in all cases here. For instance, to decrease the confidence interval to half of its width a sample size of about 12,500 RBC would be necessary, independent of the determination mode (manual or automated).Fig. 4

Bottom Line: The obtained results are compared with standardized manual analysis.Automated rosetting analyzer for micrographs analyses 25 cell objects per second reliably delivering identical results compared to manual analysis.The second, non-malaria specific, analysis mode of ARAM offers the functionality to detect arbitrary objects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Experimental Physics I, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 1, Augsburg, Germany.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus