MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An automatic segmentation algorithm for 3D cell cluster splitting using volumetric confocal images

2011· article· en· W2153208791 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionProcess (computing)Boundary (topology)Image segmentationConfocalImage (mathematics)Cluster (spacecraft)Scale-space segmentationAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.296 · 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