PyJAMAS: open-source, multimodal segmentation and analysis of microscopy images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Our increasing ability to resolve fine details using light microscopy is matched by an increasing need to quantify images in order to detect and measure phenotypes. Despite their central role in cell biology, many image analysis tools require a financial investment, are released as proprietary software, or are implemented in languages not friendly for beginners, and thus are used as black boxes. To overcome these limitations, we have developed PyJAMAS, an open-source tool for image processing and analysis written in Python. PyJAMAS provides a variety of segmentation tools, including watershed and machine learning-based methods; takes advantage of Jupyter notebooks for the display and reproducibility of data analyses; and can be used through a cross-platform graphical user interface or as part of Python scripts via a comprehensive application programming interface. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: PyJAMAS is open-source and available at https://bitbucket.org/rfg_lab/pyjamas. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.038 |
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".