MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computer Vision for Detecting and Measuring Multicellular Tumor Shperoids of Prostate Cancer

2019· article· en· W3008764535 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Wojaczek, Regina-Veronicka Kalaydina, Mohammed Gasmallah, Myron R. Szewczuk, Farhana Zulkernine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpheroidConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceProstate cancerVolume (thermodynamics)Artificial intelligenceDeep learningMulticellular organismCancerBiomedical engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)CellIn vitroBiologyMedicinePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a deep learning model to apply computer vision to detect prostate cancer spheroid cultures and calculate their volume. Multicellular tumour spheroids, or simply spheroids, represent a three-dimensional in vitro model of cancer. Spheroids are being increasingly used in drug discovery due to their superior ability to mimic the tumor microenvironment compared to monolayer cell cultures. A reduction in spheroid size in response to treatment with anticancer agents is indicative of the success of the therapy. As such, accurate spheroid detection and volume estimation is critical in assays involving spheroids. Automating spheroid detection and measurement reduces manual labor, laboratory costs, and research time. Our system is implemented using Darkflow YOLOv2, a single-phase object detector, based on a twenty-four-layer convolutional neural network. The network is trained on the custom data of biochemically-generated spheroids and their corresponding images, which are then bound and detected with an F1-score of 76% and an IoU of 69%. Volume calculations applied to the identified spheroids resulted in a high volume estimation accuracy with only 3.99% average error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207