Segmentation and Quantitative Analysis of Apoptosis of Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells from Fluorescence Microscopy Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate and fast quantitative analysis of living cells from fluorescence microscopy images is useful for evaluating experimental outcomes and cell culture protocols. An algorithm is developed in this work to automatically segment and distinguish apoptotic cells from normal cells. The algorithm involves three steps consisting of two segmentation steps and a classification step. The segmentation steps are: (i) a coarse segmentation, combining a range filter with a marching square method, is used as a prefiltering step to provide the approximate positions of cells within a two-dimensional matrix used to store cells' images and the count of the number of cells for a given image; and (ii) a fine segmentation step using the Active Contours Without Edges method is applied to the boundaries of cells identified in the coarse segmentation step. Although this basic two-step approach provides accurate edges when the cells in a given image are sparsely distributed, the occurrence of clusters of cells in high cell density samples requires further processing. Hence, a novel algorithm for clusters is developed to identify the edges of cells within clusters and to approximate their morphological features. Based on the segmentation results, a support vector machine classifier that uses three morphological features: the mean value of pixel intensities in the cellular regions, the variance of pixel intensities in the vicinity of cell boundaries, and the lengths of the boundaries, is developed for distinguishing apoptotic cells from normal cells. The algorithm is shown to be efficient in terms of computational time, quantitative analysis, and differentiation accuracy, as compared with the use of the active contours method without the proposed preliminary coarse segmentation step.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".