We previously developed a deep learning-based web service (IsletNet) for an automated counting of isolated pancreatic islets. The neural network training is limited by the absent consensus on the ground truth annotations. Here, we present a platform (IsletSwipe) for an exchange of graphical opinions among experts to facilitate the consensus formation. The platform consists of a web interface and a mobile application. In a small pilot study, we demonstrate the functionalities and the use case scenarios of the platform. Nine experts from three centers validated the drawing tools, tested precision and consistency of the expert contour drawing, and evaluated user experience. Eight experts from two centers proceeded to evaluate additional images to demonstrate the following two use case scenarios. The Validation scenario involves an automated selection of images and islets for the expert scrutiny. It is scalable (more experts, images, and islets may readily be added) and can be applied to independent validation of islet contours from various sources. The Inquiry scenario serves the ground truth generating expert in seeking assistance from peers to achieve consensus on challenging cases during the preparation for IsletNet training. This scenario is limited to a small number of manually selected images and islets. The experts gained an opportunity to influence IsletNet training and to compare other experts' opinions with their own. The ground truth-generating expert obtained feedback for future IsletNet training. IsletSwipe is a suitable tool for the consensus finding. Experts from additional centers are welcome to participate.

Department of Internal Medicine Leiden University Medical Center Leiden Netheralnds

Diabetes Center Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic

Dino School and Novy PORG Prague Czech Republic

Laboratory of Biomathematics Institute of Physiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czech Republic

Laboratory of Pancreatic Islets Center of Experimental Medicine Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic

Light Microscopy Laboratory Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czech Republic

Nuffield department of surgical sciences Oxford Consortium for Islet transplantation Oxford UK

Redox Photochemistry Lab Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Triolo TM, Bellin MD.. Lessons from human islet transplantation inform stem cell-based approaches in the treatment of diabetes. Front Endocrinol. 2021;12:636824. doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.636824. PubMed DOI PMC

Gamble A, Pepper AR, Bruni A, Shapiro AMJ. The journey of islet cell transplantation and future development. Islets. 2018;10. doi:10.1080/19382014.2018.1428511. PubMed DOI PMC

Rickels MR, Robertson RP. Pancreatic islet transplantation in humans: recent progress and future directions. Endocr Rev. 2019;40:631–15. doi:10.1210/er.2018-00154. PubMed DOI PMC

Ricordi C, Lacy PE, Finke EH, Olack BJ, Scharp DW. Automated method for isolation of human pancreatic islets. Diabetes. 1988;37:413–420. doi:10.2337/diab.37.4.413. PubMed DOI

Doppenberg JB, Engelse MA, de KE. PRISM: a novel human islet isolation technique. Transplantation. 2022;106:1271–1278. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000003897. PubMed DOI

Papas KK, Suszynski TM, Colton CK. Islet assessment for transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Tran. 2009;14:674–682. doi:10.1097/MOT.0b013e328332a489. PubMed DOI PMC

Huang H-H, Harrington S, Stehno-Bittel L. The flaws and future of islet volume measurements. Cell Transplant. 2018;27:1017–1026. doi:10.1177/0963689718779898. PubMed DOI PMC

Latif K, Noel J, Alejandro R. A simple method of staining fresh and cultured islets. Transplantation. 1988;45:827–830. doi:10.1097/00007890-198804000-00038. PubMed DOI

Ricordi C, Gray DW, Hering BJ, Kaufman DB, Warnock GL, Kneteman NM, Lake SP, London NJ, Socci C, Alejandro R, et al. Islet isolation assessment in man and large animals. Acta Diabetol Lat. 1990;27:185–195. doi:10.1007/BF02581331. PubMed DOI

Wile KJ, Fetterhoff TJ, Coffing D, Cavanagh TJ, Wright MJ. Morphologic analysis of pancreatic islets automated image analysis. Transplant P. 1994;26:3441. PMID: 7998211. PubMed

Fetterhoff TJ, Wile KJ, Coffing TJ, Cavanagh TJ, Wright MJ. Quantitation of isolated pancreatic islets using imaging technology. Transplantation proceedings 1994; 26:3351. PMID: 7998169. PubMed

Stegemann JP, O’neil JJ, Nicholson DT, Mullon CJ, Solomon BA. Automated counting and sizing of isolated porcine islets using digital image analysis. Transplantation proceedings 1997; 29:2272–2273. DOI: 10.1016/s0041-1345(97)00329-1 PubMed DOI

Stegemann JP, O’neil JJ, Nicholson DT, Mullon C-P. Improved assessment of isolated islet tissue volume using digital image analysis. Cell Transplant. 1998;7:469–478. doi:10.1177/096368979800700506. PubMed DOI

Kissler HJ, Niland JC, Olack B, Ricordi C, Hering BJ, Naji A, Kandeel F, Oberholzer J, Fernandez L, Contreras J, et al. Validation of methodologies for quantifying isolated human islets: an islet cell resources study. Clin Transplant. 2010;24:236–242. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0012.2009.01052.x. PubMed DOI PMC

Girman P, Kriz J, Friedmansky J, Saudek F. Digital imaging as a possible approach in evaluation of islet yield. Cell Transplant. 2003;12:129–133. doi:10.3727/000000003108746713. PubMed DOI

Niclauss N, Sgroi A, Morel P, Baertschiger R, Armanet M, Wojtusciszyn A, Parnaud G, Muller Y, Berney T, Bosco D. Computer-Assisted digital image analysis to quantify the mass and purity of isolated human islets before transplantation. Transplant [Internet]. 2008;86:1603–1609. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e31818f671a. PubMed DOI

Wang L-J, Kaufman DB. Digital image analysis to assess quantity and morphological quality of isolated pancreatic islets. Cell Transplant. 2016;25:1219–1225. doi:10.3727/096368915X689947. PubMed DOI

Habart D, Švihlík J, Schier J, Cahová M, Girman P, Zacharovová K, Berkov Z, Kříž J, Fabryová E, Kosinová L, et al. Automated analysis of microscopic images of isolated pancreatic islets. Cell Transplant. 2016;25:2145–2156. doi:10.3727/096368916X692005. PubMed DOI

Buchwald P, Bernal A, Echeverri F, Tamayo-Garcia A, Linetsky E, Ricordi C. Fully automated Islet Cell Counter (ICC) for the assessment of islet mass, purity, and size distribution by digital image analysis. Cell Transplant. 2016;25:1747–1761. doi:10.3727/096368916X691655. PubMed DOI

Yu X, Zhang P, He Y, Lin E, Ai H, Ramasubramanian MK, Wang Y, Xing Y, Oberholzer J. A Smartphone-Fluidic digital imaging analysis system for pancreatic islet mass quantification. Front Bioeng Biotech. 2021;9:692686. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.692686. PubMed DOI PMC

Habart D, Blazek A, Saudek F. IsletNet: web service for automated analysis of islet graft images. IPITA congress 2017 abstracts [Internet] :Abstract P17. Available from: isletnet.com

Habart D, Matzner F, Blazek A, Belohlavek P, Berkova Z, Scholz H, Friberg A, Gmyr V, Kerr-Conte J, Bosco D, et al. IsletNet: an online service for standardized islet counting. Lyon: IPITA Abstract Book; 2019

IsletNet web service [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jan 1]; Available from: https://isletnet.com

Fiji, an image processing package [Internet]. Available from: https://fiji.sc

Spitzer M, Wildenhain J, Rappsilber J, Tyers M. BoxPlotR: a web tool for generation of box plots. Nat Methods. 2014;11:121–122. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2811. PubMed DOI PMC

BoxPlotR: a web-tool for generation of box plots [Internet]. Available from: http://shiny.chemgrid.org/boxplotr/ PubMed PMC

Lj R, Jeff S. Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. J Usability Stud [Internet]. 13:158–167. Available from. https://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/pdf/JUS_Lewis_May2018.pdf.

Stylus (Adonit) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.adonit.net/mini4/

Bugiolacchi R, Bamford S, Tar P, Thacker N, Crawford IA, Joy KH, Grindrod PM, Lintott C. The moon zoo citizen science project: preliminary results for the apollo 17 landing site. Icarus. 2016;271:30–48. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.01.021. DOI

Francis A, Brown J, Cameron T, Clarke RC, Dodd R, Hurdle J, Neave M, Nowakowska J, Patel V, Puttock A, et al. A multi-annotator survey of sub-km craters on mars. Data. 2020;5:70. doi:10.3390/data5030070. DOI

Schüttler PJ, Yarlagadda DVK, Vanderbilt C, Fuchs TJ. Overcoming an annotation hurdle: digitizing pen annotations from whole slide images. J Pathol Inform. 2021;12:9. doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_85_20. PubMed DOI PMC

Roth HR, Yang D, Xu Z, Wang X, Xu D. Going to extremes: weakly supervised medical image segmentation. Mach Learn Knowl Extr. 2021;3:507–524. doi:10.3390/make3020026. DOI

Aljabri M, AlAmir M, AlGhamdi M, Abdel-Mottaleb M, Collado-Mesa F. Towards a better understanding of annotation tools for medical imaging: a survey. Multimed Tools Appl. 2022;81:25877–25911. doi:10.1007/s11042-022-12100-1. PubMed DOI PMC