LAMA: automated image analysis for the developmental phenotyping of mouse embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced 3D imaging modalities, such as micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), have been incorporated into the high-throughput embryo pipeline of the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC). This project generates large volumes of raw data that cannot be immediately exploited without significant resources of personnel and expertise. Thus, rapid automated annotation is crucial to ensure that 3D imaging data can be integrated with other multi-dimensional phenotyping data. We present an automated computational mouse embryo phenotyping pipeline that harnesses the large amount of wild-type control data available in the IMPC embryo pipeline in order to address issues of low mutant sample number as well as incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity. We also investigate the effect of developmental substage on automated phenotyping results. Designed primarily for developmental biologists, our software performs image pre-processing, registration, statistical analysis and segmentation of embryo images. We also present a novel anatomical E14.5 embryo atlas average and, using it with LAMA, show that we can uncover known and novel dysmorphology from two IMPC knockout lines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".