MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017966457 · doi:10.1364/boe.5.004145

Automated method for the segmentation and morphometry of nerve fibers in large-scale CARS images of spinal cord tissue

2014· article· en· W2017966457 on OpenAlexafffund
Steve Bégin, Olivier Dupont-Therrien, Erik Bélanger, Amy Daradich, Sophie Laffray, Yves De Koninck, Daniel Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSegmentationSpinal cordMicroscopyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage segmentationComputer visionAnatomyImage processingNerve fiberPattern recognition (psychology)Biomedical engineeringOpticsPhysicsBiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fully automated method for large-scale segmentation of nerve fibers from coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering (CARS) microscopy images is presented. The method is specifically designed for CARS images of transverse cross sections of nervous tissue but is also suitable for use with standard light microscopy images. After a detailed description of the two-part segmentation algorithm, its accuracy is quantified by comparing the resulting binary images to manually segmented images. We then demonstrate the ability of our method to retrieve morphological data from CARS images of nerve tissue. Finally, we present the segmentation of a large mosaic of CARS images covering more than half the area of a mouse spinal cord cross section and show evidence of clusters of neurons with similar g-ratios throughout the spinal cord.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207