Active mesh and neural network pipeline for cell aggregate segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Segmenting cells within cellular aggregates in 3D is a growing challenge in cell biology, due to improvements in capacity and accuracy of microscopy techniques. Here we describe a pipeline to segment images of cell aggregates in 3D. The pipeline combines neural network segmentations with active meshes. We apply our segmentation method to cultured mouse mammary duct organoids imaged over 24 hours with oblique plane microscopy, a high-throughput light-sheet fluorescence microscopy technique. We show that our method can also be applied to images of mouse embryonic stem cells imaged with a spinning disc microscope. We segment individual cells based on nuclei and cell membrane fluorescent markers, and track cells over time. We describe metrics to quantify the quality of the automated segmentation. Our segmentation pipeline involves a Fiji plugin which implement active meshes deformation and allows a user to create training data, automatically obtain segmentation meshes from original image data or neural network prediction, and manually curate segmentation data to identify and correct mistakes. Our active meshes-based approach facilitates segmentation postprocessing, correction, and integration with neural network prediction. Statement of significance In vitro culture of organ-like structures derived from stem cells, so-called organoids, allows to image tissue morphogenetic processes with high temporal and spatial resolution. Three-dimensional segmentation of cell shape in timelapse movies of these developing organoids is however a significant challenge. In this work, we propose an image analysis pipeline for cell aggregates that combines deep learning with active contour segmentations. This combination offers a flexible and efficient way to segment three-dimensional cell images, which we illustrate with by segmenting datasets of growing mammary gland organoids and mouse embryonic stem cells.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".