MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135057484 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.08.434453

Segmentation of Tissues and Proliferating Cells in Light-Sheet Microscopy Images using Convolutional Neural Networks

2021· preprint· en· W3135057484 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas Lo Vercio, Rebecca M. Green, Samuel Robertson, Si Han Guo, Andreas Dauter, Marta Marchini, Marta Vidal‐García, Xiang Zhao, Ralph Marcucio, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research ChairsAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteWestern Canada Research GridNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchCompute CanadaCarnegie Mellon University
KeywordsSegmentationConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objective A variety of genetic mutations are known to affect cell proliferation and apoptosis during organism development, leading to structural birth defects such as facial clefting. Yet, the mechanisms how these alterations influence the development of the face remain unclear. Cell proliferation and its relation to shape variation can be studied in high detail using Light-Sheet Microscopy (LSM) imaging across a range of developmental time points. However, the large number of LSM images captured at cellular resolution precludes manual analysis. Thus, the aim of this work was to develop and evaluate automatic methods to segment tissues and proliferating cells in these images in an accurate and efficient way. Methods We developed, trained, and evaluated convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for segmenting tissues, cells, and specifically proliferating cells in LSM datasets. We compared the automatically extracted tissue and cell annotations to corresponding manual segmentations for three specific applications: (i) tissue segmentation (neural ectoderm and mesenchyme) in nuclear-stained LSM images, (ii) cell segmentation in nuclear-stained LSM images, and (iii) segmentation of proliferating cells in Phospho-Histone H3 (PHH3)-stained LSM images. Results The automatic CNN-based tissue segmentation method achieved a macro-average F-score of 0.84 compared to a macro-average F-score of 0.89 comparing corresponding manual segmentations from two observers. The automatic cell segmentation method in nuclear-stained LSM images achieved an F-score of 0.57, while comparing the manual segmentations resulted in an F-score of 0.39. Finally, the automatic segmentation method of proliferating cells in the PHH3-stained LSM datasets achieved an F-score of 0.56 for the automated method, while comparing the manual segmentations resulted in an F-score of 0.45. Conclusions The proposed automatic CNN-based framework for tissue and cell segmentation leads to results comparable to the inter-observer agreement, accelerating the LSM image analysis. The trained CNN models can also be applied for shape or morphological analysis of embryos, and more generally in other areas of cell biology.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207