MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161944241 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6091482

A novel approach to automated cell counting for studying human corneal epithelial cells

2011· article· en· W2161944241 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisImage segmentationComputer visionLens (geology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Sample (material)Cell countingCellImage (mathematics)BiologyChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel automated cell counting technique for cell sample images used to study the side-effects of lens cleaning solutions on human corneal epithelial cells is developed. The proposed multi-step approach integrates non-maximum suppression, seeded region growing, connected component analysis, and adaptive thresholding to produce segmentation and classification results that are robust to background illumination variation and clustering of cells. The proposed algorithm is computationally efficient, and experimental results show that the average detection rate of nucleated cells is greater than 90% with the proposed technique as opposed to the state-of-the-art level set method which gives an accuracy of less than 65%.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.211 · 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