Cell segmentation using deep learning: comparing label and label-free approaches using hyper-labeled image stacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep learning provides an opportunity to automatically segment and extract cellular features from high-throughput microscopy images. Many labeling strategies have been developed for this purpose, ranging from the use of fluorescent markers to label-free approaches. However, differences in the channels available to each respective training dataset make it difficult to directly compare the effectiveness of these strategies across studies. Here we explore training models using subimage stacks composed of channels sampled from larger, ‘hyper-labeled’, image stacks. This allows us to directly compare a variety of labeling strategies and training approaches on identical cells. This approach revealed that fluorescence-based strategies generally provide higher segmentation accuracies but were less accurate than label-free models when labeling was inconsistent. The relative strengths of label and label-free techniques could be combined through the use of merging fluorescence channels and out-of-focus brightfield images. Beyond comparing labeling strategies, using subimage stacks for training was also found to provide a method of simulating a wide range of labeling conditions, increasing the ability of the final model to accommodate a greater range of experimental setups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".