Automated Slide Scanning and Segmentation in Fluorescently-labeled Tissues Using a Widefield High-content Analysis System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated slide scanning and segmentation of fluorescently-labeled tissues is the most efficient way to analyze whole slides or large tissue sections. Unfortunately, many researchers spend large amounts of time and resources developing and optimizing workflows that are only relevant to their own experiments. In this article, we describe a protocol that can be used by those with access to a widefield high-content analysis system (WHCAS) to image any slide-mounted tissue, with options for customization within pre-built modules found in the associated software. Not originally intended for slide scanning, the steps detailed in this article make it possible to acquire slide scanning images in the WHCAS which can be imported into the associated software. In this example, the automated segmentation of brain tumor slides is demonstrated, but the automated segmentation of any fluorescently-labeled nuclear or cytoplasmic marker is possible. Furthermore, there are a variety of other quantitative software modules including assays for protein localization/translocation, cellular proliferation/viability/apoptosis, and angiogenesis that can be run. This technique will save researchers time and effort and create an automated protocol for slide analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".