An automatic segmentation algorithm for 3D cell cluster splitting using volumetric confocal images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid advance of three-dimensional (3D) confocal imaging technology, more and more 3D cellular images will be available. Segmentation of intact cells is a critical task in automated image analysis and quantification of cellular microscopic images. One of the major complications in the automatic segmentation of cellular images arises due to the fact that cells are often closely clustered. Several algorithms are proposed for segmenting cell clusters but most of them are 2D based. In other words, these algorithms are designed to segment 2D cell clusters from a single image. Given 2D segmentation methods developed, they can certainly be applied to each image slice with the 3D cellular volume to obtain the segmented cell clusters. Apparently, in such case, the 3D depth information with the volumetric images is not really used. Often, 3D reconstruction is conducted after the individualized segmentation to build the 3D cellular models from segmented 2D cellular contours. Such 2D native process is not appropriate as stacking of individually segmented 2D cells or nuclei do not necessarily form the correct and complete 3D cells or nuclei in 3D. This paper proposes a novel and efficient 3D cluster splitting algorithm based on concavity analysis and interslice spatial coherence. We have taken the advantage of using the 3D boundary points detected using higher order statistics as an input contour for performing the 3D cluster splitting algorithm. The idea is to separate the touching or overlapping cells or nuclei in a 3D native way. Experimental results show the efficiency of our algorithm for 3D microscopic cellular images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".