Deep learning for automatic segmentation of the nuclear envelope in electron microscopy data, trained with volunteer segmentations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in volume electron microscopy mean it is now possible to generate thousands of serial images at nanometre resolution overnight, yet the gold standard approach for data analysis remains manual segmentation by an expert microscopist, resulting in a critical research bottleneck. Although some machine learning approaches exist in this domain, we remain far from realizing the aspiration of a highly accurate, yet generic, automated analysis approach, with a major obstacle being lack of sufficient high-quality ground-truth data. To address this, we developed a novel citizen science project, Etch a Cell, to enable volunteers to manually segment the nuclear envelope (NE) of HeLa cells imaged with serial blockface scanning electron microscopy. We present our approach for aggregating multiple volunteer annotations to generate a high-quality consensus segmentation and demonstrate that data produced exclusively by volunteers can be used to train a highly accurate machine learning algorithm for automatic segmentation of the NE, which we share here, in addition to our archived benchmark data.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it