| 1. |
- Kattge, Jens, et al.
(author)
-
TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access
- 2020
-
In: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 26:1, s. 119-188
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bick, Ulrich, et al.
(author)
-
Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation : recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
- 2020
-
In: Insights into Imaging. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1869-4101. ; 11:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as “high-risk” or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.
|
|
| 3. |
- Haenssle, H A, et al.
(author)
-
Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists.
- 2018
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 29:8, s. 1836-1842
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Deep learning convolutional neural networks (CNN) may facilitate melanoma detection, but data comparing a CNN's diagnostic performance to larger groups of dermatologists are lacking.Google's Inception v4 CNN architecture was trained and validated using dermoscopic images and corresponding diagnoses. In a comparative cross-sectional reader study a 100-image test-set was used (level-I: dermoscopy only; level-II: dermoscopy plus clinical information and images). Main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) for diagnostic classification (dichotomous) of lesions by the CNN versus an international group of 58 dermatologists during level-I or -II of the reader study. Secondary end points included the dermatologists' diagnostic performance in their management decisions and differences in the diagnostic performance of dermatologists during level-I and -II of the reader study. Additionally, the CNN's performance was compared with the top-five algorithms of the 2016 International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) challenge.In level-I dermatologists achieved a mean (±standard deviation) sensitivity and specificity for lesion classification of 86.6% (±9.3%) and 71.3% (±11.2%), respectively. More clinical information (level-II) improved the sensitivity to 88.9% (±9.6%, P = 0.19) and specificity to 75.7% (±11.7%, P < 0.05). The CNN ROC curve revealed a higher specificity of 82.5% when compared with dermatologists in level-I (71.3%, P < 0.01) and level-II (75.7%, P < 0.01) at their sensitivities of 86.6% and 88.9%, respectively. The CNN ROC AUC was greater than the mean ROC area of dermatologists (0.86 versus 0.79, P < 0.01). The CNN scored results close to the top three algorithms of the ISBI 2016 challenge.For the first time we compared a CNN's diagnostic performance with a large international group of 58 dermatologists, including 30 experts. Most dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN. Irrespective of any physicians' experience, they may benefit from assistance by a CNN's image classification.This study was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-Study-ID: DRKS00013570; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/).
|
|
