Selection and Tuning of a Fast and Simple Phase-Contrast Microscopy Image Segmentation Algorithm for Measuring Myoblast Growth Kinetics in an Automated Manner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquiring and processing phase-contrast microscopy images in wide-field long-term live-cell imaging and high-throughput screening applications is still a challenge as the methodology and algorithms used must be fast, simple to use and tune, and as minimally intrusive as possible. In this paper, we developed a simple and fast algorithm to compute the cell-covered surface (degree of confluence) in phase-contrast microscopy images. This segmentation algorithm is based on a range filter of a specified size, a minimum range threshold, and a minimum object size threshold. These parameters were adjusted in order to maximize the F-measure function on a calibration set of 200 hand-segmented images, and its performance was compared with other algorithms proposed in the literature. A set of one million images from 37 myoblast cell cultures under different conditions were processed to obtain their cell-covered surface against time. The data were used to fit exponential and logistic models, and the analysis showed a linear relationship between the kinetic parameters and passage number and highlighted the effect of culture medium quality on cell growth kinetics. This algorithm could be used for real-time monitoring of cell cultures and for high-throughput screening experiments upon adequate tuning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".