{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031043593130779392, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031704095112285335, 'mean_word_length': 5.011904761904762, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison between Manual and Automated Evaluations of Tissue Microarray Patterns of Protein Expression

Tissue microarray technology enables us to evaluate the pattern of protein expression in large numbers of samples. However, manual data acquisition and analysis still represent a challenge because they are subjective and time-consuming. Automated analysis may thus increase the speed and reproducibility of evaluation. However, the reliability of automated analysis systems should be independently evaluated. Herein, the expression of phosphorylated AKT and mTOR was determined by ScanScope XT (Aperio; Vista, CA) and ACIS III (Dako; Glostrup, Denmark) and compared with the manual analysis by two observers. The percentage of labeled pixels or nuclei analysis had a good correlation between human observers and automated systems (κ = 0.855 and 0.879 for ScanScope vs. observers and κ = 0.765 and 0.793 for ACIS III vs. observers). The intensity of labeling determined by ScanScope was also correlated with that found by the human observers (correlation index of 0.946 and 0.851 for pAKT and 0.851 and 0.875 for pmTOR). However, the correlation between ACIS III and human observation varied for labeling intensity and was considered poor in some cases (correlation index of 0.718 and 0.680 for pAKT and 0.223 and 0.225 for pmTOR). Thus, the percentage of positive pixels or nuclei determination was satisfactorily performed by both systems; however, labeling intensity was better identified by ScanScope XT.