Automated Counting of Cancer Cells by Ensembling Deep Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-content and high-throughput digital microscopes have generated large image sets in biological experiments and clinical practice. Automatic image analysis techniques, such as cell counting, are in high demand. Here, cell counting was treated as a regression problem using image features (phenotypes) extracted by deep learning models. Three deep convolutional neural network models were developed to regress image features to their cell counts in an end-to-end way. Theoretically, ensembling imaging phenotypes should have better representative ability than a single type of imaging phenotype. We implemented this idea by integrating two types of imaging phenotypes (dot density map and foreground mask) extracted by two autoencoders and regressing the ensembled imaging phenotypes to cell counts afterwards. Two publicly available datasets with synthetic microscopic images were used to train and test the proposed models. Root mean square error, mean absolute error, mean absolute percent error, and Pearson correlation were applied to evaluate the models' performance. The well-trained models were also applied to predict the cancer cell counts of real microscopic images acquired in a biological experiment to evaluate the roles of two colorectal-cancer-related genes. The proposed model by ensembling deep imaging features showed better performance in terms of smaller errors and larger correlations than those based on a single type of imaging feature. Overall, all models' predictions showed a high correlation with the true cell counts. The ensembling-based model integrated high-level imaging phenotypes to improve the estimation of cell counts from high-content and high-throughput microscopic images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".