Automated segmentation of cellular images using an effective region force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the behavior of cells is an important problem for biologists. Significant research has been done to facilitate this by automating the segmentation of microscopic cellular images. Bright-field images of cells prove to be particularly difficult to segment, due to features such as low contrast, missing boundaries, and broken halos. We present two algorithms for automated segmentation of cellular images. These algorithms are based on a graph-partitioning approach, where each pixel is modeled as a node of a weighted graph. The method combines an effective region force with the Laplacian and total variation boundary forces, respectively, to give the two models. This region force can be interpreted as a conditional probability of a pixel belonging to a certain class (cell or background) given a small set of already labeled pixels. For practicality, we use a small set of only background pixels from the border of cell images as the labeled set. Both algorithms are tested on bright-field images to give good results. Due to faster performance, the Laplacian-based algorithm is also tested on a variety of other datasets, including fluorescent images, phase-contrast images, and 2-D and 3-D simulated images. The results show that the algorithm performs well and consistently across a range of various cell image features, such as the cell shape, size, contrast, and noise levels.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".