MICRA-Net: MICRoscopy Analysis Neural Network to solve detection, classification, and segmentation from a single simple auxiliary task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High throughput quantitative analysis of microscopy images presents a challenge due to the complexity of the image content and the difficulty to retrieve precisely annotated datasets. In this paper we introduce a weakly-supervised MICRoscopy Analysis neural network (MICRA-Net) that can be trained on a simple main classification task using image-level annotations to solve multiple the more complex auxiliary semantic segmentation task and other associated tasks such as detection or enumeration. MICRA-Net relies on the latent information embedded within a trained model to achieve performances similar to state-of-the-art architectures when no precisely annotated dataset is available. This learnt information is extracted from the network using gradient class activation maps, which are combined to generate detailed feature maps of the biological structures of interest. We demonstrate how MICRA-Net significantly alleviates the Expert annotation process on various microscopy datasets and can be used for high-throughput quantitative analysis of microscopy images.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".