Quantitative and Semi-quantitative Methods for Assessing the Degree of Methylene Blue Staining in Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To develop a digital algorithm for quantitative assessment of surface methylene blue staining in whole lymph nodes and validate a semi-quantitative visual scoring method for patient-side use. Methods: Lymph nodes from canine patients with spontaneous tumors undergoing sentinel lymph node mapping were prospectively assessed ex vivo and photographed. Using an open-source computer-based imaging software, an algorithm was developed for quantification of staining based on a signal-to-background ratio. Next, two blinded observers evaluated images and assigned a semi-quantitative visual score based on surface staining (0—no blue stain, 1−1–50% stained, and 2−51–100% stained) and those results were compared to the established quantitative standard. Results: Forty-three lymph nodes were included. Image analysis successfully quantified blue staining and differentiated from normal lymph node tissue in all cases. Agreement between observers using the Kappa coefficient demonstrated strong agreement ( k = 0.8581, p < 0.0001) between semi-quantitative visual scoring and image analysis. There was substantial interobserver and intraobserver agreement for the scoring system ( k = 0.7340, p < 0.0001 and k = 0.8983, p < 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: A digital algorithm using an open-source software was simple and straightforward to use for quantification of blue staining. The use of a semi-quantitative visual scoring system shows promise for a simple, objective, repeatable assessment of methylene blue staining at the time of surgery. This study demonstrates reliable and repeatable methods for blue staining quantification thereby providing a novel and objective reporting mechanism in scientific research involving sentinel lymph node mapping.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".