Fully Automated Leg Tracking in Freely Moving Insects using Feature Learning Leg Segmentation and Tracking (FLLIT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Drosophila model has been invaluable for the study of neurological function and for understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie neurodegeneration. While fly techniques for the manipulation and study of neuronal subsets have grown increasingly sophisticated, the richness of the resultant behavioral phenotypes has not been captured at a similar detail. To be able to study subtle fly leg movements for comparison amongst mutants requires the ability to automatically measure and quantify high-speed and rapid leg movements. Hence, we developed a machine-learning algorithm for automated leg claw tracking in freely walking flies, Feature Learning-based Limb segmentation and Tracking (FLLIT). Unlike most deep learning methods, FLLIT is fully automated and generates its own training sets without a need for user annotation, using morphological parameters built into the learning algorithm. This article describes an in depth protocol for carrying out gait analysis using FLLIT. It details the procedures for camera setup, arena construction, video recording, leg segmentation and leg claw tracking. It also gives an overview of the data produced by FLLIT, which includes raw tracked body and leg positions in every video frame, 20 gait parameters, 5 plots and a tracked video. To demonstrate the use of FLLIT, we quantify relevant diseased gait parameters in a fly model of Spinocerebellar ataxia 3.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".