StainFuser: Controlling Diffusion for Faster Neural Style Transfer in Multi-Gigapixel Histology Images
0
🧠
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper provides guidelines for authors on how to format their responses to peer reviews for submissions to the arXiv preprint server.
- The guidelines cover topics such as the length of the response, formatting requirements, and best practices for effectively communicating with reviewers.
- The goal is to help authors prepare high-quality responses that address reviewer concerns and increase the chances of their paper being accepted.
Plain English Explanation
When you submit a research paper to a journal or preprint server, the editors and peer reviewers will often provide feedback and suggestions for improving the work. This paper outlines a set of guidelines to help authors craft a clear and effective response to those comments.
The key points are:
- Response length - The response should be concise, typically no more than a few paragraphs, to address the main issues raised by the reviewers.
- Formatting - The response should follow specific formatting requirements, such as using LaTeX and including relevant section headings.
- Communication style - Authors should aim to be polite, respectful, and focused on addressing the reviewers' concerns, rather than being defensive or argumentative.
The goal is to make the response as clear and constructive as possible, to increase the chances that the paper will be accepted for publication. Following these guidelines can help authors have a productive dialogue with the reviewers and improve the quality of their work.
Technical Explanation
The paper outlines several key guidelines for authors to consider when preparing a response to peer review comments for submissions to the arXiv preprint server.
Response Length: The authors recommend keeping the response concise, typically no more than a few paragraphs. This allows the reviewers to easily digest the key points and understand how the authors have addressed their concerns.
Formatting: The authors provide specific formatting instructions, including the use of LaTeX and the inclusion of relevant section headings (e.g., "Introduction", "Response to Reviewer 1", "Response to Reviewer 2"). This consistent formatting makes the response easier to read and navigate.
Communication Style: The authors emphasize the importance of maintaining a polite and respectful tone when responding to reviewers. They advise against being defensive or argumentative, and instead recommend focusing on directly addressing the reviewers' comments and suggestions in a constructive manner.
By following these guidelines, the authors aim to help researchers prepare high-quality responses that effectively communicate their understanding of the reviewers' concerns and their efforts to address them. This, in turn, can improve the chances of a paper being accepted for publication.
Critical Analysis
The guidelines presented in this paper are well-reasoned and likely to be effective in helping authors craft better responses to peer review comments. The emphasis on conciseness, clear formatting, and a constructive communication style are all important factors in facilitating a productive dialogue with reviewers.
However, one potential limitation is that the guidelines may not fully account for the diverse range of reviewer comments and paper revisions that authors may encounter. While the general principles are sound, authors may need to adapt their approach to the specific circumstances of their paper and the feedback they receive.
Additionally, the guidelines do not address the potential for disagreement or debate with reviewers. In some cases, authors may need to respectfully challenge or question the reviewers' comments, and the paper does not provide much guidance on how to navigate such situations.
Overall, these guidelines appear to be a useful resource for authors seeking to improve the effectiveness of their peer review responses. However, authors should also be prepared to exercise their own judgment and adapt the recommendations as needed to fit the unique circumstances of their research and the feedback they receive.
Conclusion
This paper provides a set of guidelines to help authors prepare effective responses to peer review comments for submissions to the arXiv preprint server. The key recommendations focus on keeping the response concise, following specific formatting requirements, and maintaining a polite and constructive communication style.
By adhering to these guidelines, authors can improve their chances of having their papers accepted for publication by demonstrating a clear understanding of the reviewers' concerns and a willingness to engage in a productive dialogue to address them. This, in turn, can enhance the overall quality of research shared through the arXiv platform and foster more fruitful exchanges between authors and reviewers.
While the guidelines are generally sound, authors should also be prepared to adapt their approach to fit the unique circumstances of their paper and the feedback they receive. Ultimately, the goal is to facilitate a constructive review process that helps strengthen the research and move the field forward.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🧠
0
StainFuser: Controlling Diffusion for Faster Neural Style Transfer in Multi-Gigapixel Histology Images
Robert Jewsbury, Ruoyu Wang, Abhir Bhalerao, Nasir Rajpoot, Quoc Dang Vu
Stain normalization algorithms aim to transform the color and intensity characteristics of a source multi-gigapixel histology image to match those of a target image, mitigating inconsistencies in the appearance of stains used to highlight cellular components in the images. We propose a new approach, StainFuser, which treats this problem as a style transfer task using a novel Conditional Latent Diffusion architecture, eliminating the need for handcrafted color components. With this method, we curate SPI-2M the largest stain normalization dataset to date of over 2 million histology images with neural style transfer for high-quality transformations. Trained on this data, StainFuser outperforms current state-of-the-art deep learning and handcrafted methods in terms of the quality of normalized images and in terms of downstream model performance on the CoNIC dataset.
Read more7/15/2024
0
Multi-target stain normalization for histology slides
Desislav Ivanov, Carlo Alberto Barbano, Marco Grangetto
Traditional staining normalization approaches, e.g. Macenko, typically rely on the choice of a single representative reference image, which may not adequately account for the diverse staining patterns of datasets collected in practical scenarios. In this study, we introduce a novel approach that leverages multiple reference images to enhance robustness against stain variation. Our method is parameter-free and can be adopted in existing computational pathology pipelines with no significant changes. We evaluate the effectiveness of our method through experiments using a deep-learning pipeline for automatic nuclei segmentation on colorectal images. Our results show that by leveraging multiple reference images, better results can be achieved when generalizing to external data, where the staining can widely differ from the training set.
Read more6/11/2024
0
New!Impact of Stain Variation and Color Normalization for Prognostic Predictions in Pathology
Siyu (Steven), Lin, Haowen Zhou, Richard J. Cote, Mark Watson, Ramaswamy Govindan, Changhuei Yang
In recent years, deep neural networks (DNNs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in pathology applications, potentially even outperforming expert pathologists due to their ability to learn subtle features from large datasets. One complication in preparing digital pathology datasets for DNN tasks is variation in tinctorial qualities. A common way to address this is to perform stain normalization on the images. In this study, we show that a well-trained DNN model trained on one batch of histological slides failed to generalize to another batch prepared at a different time from the same tissue blocks, even when stain normalization methods were applied. This study used sample data from a previously reported DNN that was able to identify patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors did and did not metastasize, with high accuracy, based on training and then testing of digital images from H&E stained primary tumor tissue sections processed at the same time. In this study we obtained a new series of histologic slides from the adjacent recuts of same tissue blocks processed in the same lab but at a different time. We found that the DNN trained on the either batch of slides/images was unable to generalize and failed to predict progression in the other batch of slides/images (AUC_cross-batch = 0.52 - 0.53 compared to AUC_same-batch = 0.74 - 0.81). The failure to generalize did not improve even when the tinctorial difference correction were made through either traditional color-tuning or stain normalization with the help of a Cycle Generative Adversarial Network (CycleGAN) process. This highlights the need to develop an entirely new way to process and collect consistent microscopy images from histologic slides that can be used to both train and allow for the general application of predictive DNN algorithms.
Read more9/16/2024
0
Stain Normalization of Hematology Slides using Neural Color Transfer
M. Muneeb Arshad, Hasan Sajid, M. Jawad Khan
Deep learning is popularly used for analyzing pathology images, but variations in image properties can limit the effectiveness of the models. The study aims to develop a method that transfers the variability present in the training set to unseen images, improving the model's ability to make accurate inferences. YOLOv5 was trained on peripheral blood and bone marrow sample images and Neural Color Transfer techniques were used to incorporate invariance. The results showed significant improvement in detecting WBCs from untrained samples after normalization, highlighting the potential of deep learning-based normalization techniques for inference robustness.
Read more9/12/2024