MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950569309 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0012-17.2017

ABLE: An Activity-Based Level Set Segmentation Algorithm for Two-Photon Calcium Imaging Data

2017· article· en· W2950569309 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Reynolds, Therése Abrahamsson, Renaud Schuck, P. Jesper Sjöström, Simon R. Schultz, Pier Luigi Dragotti

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Research CouncilGovernment of Canada
KeywordsActive contour modelSegmentationCalcium imagingComputer scienceLevel set (data structures)PixelSet (abstract data type)Partition (number theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmFunction (biology)Data setSynthetic dataImage segmentationComputer visionMathematicsCalciumBiologyChemistryCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present an algorithm for detecting the location of cells from two-photon calcium imaging data. In our framework, multiple coupled active contours evolve, guided by a model-based cost function, to identify cell boundaries. An active contour seeks to partition a local region into two subregions, a cell interior and exterior, in which all pixels have maximally “similar” time courses. This simple, local model allows contours to be evolved predominantly independently. When contours are sufficiently close, their evolution is coupled, in a manner that permits overlap. We illustrate the ability of the proposed method to demix overlapping cells on real data. The proposed framework is flexible, incorporating no prior information regarding a cell’s morphology or stereotypical temporal activity, which enables the detection of cells with diverse properties. We demonstrate algorithm performance on a challenging mouse in vitro dataset, containing synchronously spiking cells, and a manually labelled mouse in vivo dataset, on which ABLE (the proposed method) achieves a 67.5% success rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207