Multiphoton fluorescent images with a spatially varying background signal: a ML deconvolution method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By means of multiphoton laser scanning microscopy, neuroscientists can look inside the brain deeper than has ever been possible before. Multiphoton fluorescent images, as all optical images, suffer from degradation caused by a variety of sources (e.g. light dispersion and absorption in the tissue, laser fluctuations, spurious photodetection and staining deficiency). From a modelling perspective, such degradations can be considered the sum of stochastic noise and a background signal. Among the methods proposed in the literature to perform image deconvolution in either confocal or multiphoton fluorescent microscopy, Vicidomini et al. (2009) were the first to incorporate models for noise (a Poisson process) and background signal (spatially constant) in the context of regularized inverse problems. Unfortunately, the so-called split-gradient deconvolution method (SGM) they used did not consider possible spatial variations in the background signal. In this paper, we extend the SGM by adding a maximum-likelihood estimation step for the determination of a spatially varying background signal. We demonstrate that the assumption of a constant background is not always valid in multiphoton laser microscopy and by using synthetic and actual multiphoton fluorescent images, we evaluate the face of validity of the proposed method, and compare its accuracy with the previously introduced SGM algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".