MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181070182 · doi:10.1007/s00204-021-03113-0

Inter-laboratory automation of the in vitro micronucleus assay using imaging flow cytometry and deep learning

2021· article· en· W3181070182 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John W. Wills, Jatin R. Verma, Benjamin J. Rees, Danielle S G Harte, Qiellor Haxhiraj, Claire M. Barnes, R. Eric Barnes, Matthew A. Rodrigues, Minh Doan, Andrew Filby, Rachel E. Hewitt, Catherine A. Thornton, J. Cronin, Julia Kenny, Ruby A Buckley, Anthony M. Lynch, Anne E. Carpenter, Huw D. Summers, George E. Johnson, Paul Rees

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Toxicology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of CambridgeNational Institutes of HealthGirton College, University of CambridgeHealth CanadaNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsMicronucleus testMicronucleusArtificial intelligenceFlow cytometryDeep learningComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)BiologyMedicineGeneticsInternal medicineToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The in vitro micronucleus assay is a globally significant method for DNA damage quantification used for regulatory compound safety testing in addition to inter-individual monitoring of environmental, lifestyle and occupational factors. However, it relies on time-consuming and user-subjective manual scoring. Here we show that imaging flow cytometry and deep learning image classification represents a capable platform for automated, inter-laboratory operation. Images were captured for the cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) assay across three laboratories using methyl methanesulphonate (1.25-5.0 μg/mL) and/or carbendazim (0.8-1.6 μg/mL) exposures to TK6 cells. Human-scored image sets were assembled and used to train and test the classification abilities of the "DeepFlow" neural network in both intra- and inter-laboratory contexts. Harnessing image diversity across laboratories yielded a network able to score unseen data from an entirely new laboratory without any user configuration. Image classification accuracies of 98%, 95%, 82% and 85% were achieved for 'mononucleates', 'binucleates', 'mononucleates with MN' and 'binucleates with MN', respectively. Successful classifications of 'trinucleates' (90%) and 'tetranucleates' (88%) in addition to 'other or unscorable' phenotypes (96%) were also achieved. Attempts to classify extremely rare, tri- and tetranucleated cells with micronuclei into their own categories were less successful (≤ 57%). Benchmark dose analyses of human or automatically scored micronucleus frequency data yielded quantitation of the same equipotent concentration regardless of scoring method. We conclude that this automated approach offers significant potential to broaden the practical utility of the CBMN method across industry, research and clinical domains. We share our strategy using openly-accessible frameworks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of ToxicologySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207