ESQmodel: biologically informed evaluation of 2-D cell segmentation quality in multiplexed tissue images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Single cell segmentation is critical in the processing of spatial omics data to accurately perform cell type identification and analyze spatial expression patterns. Segmentation methods often rely on semi-supervised annotation or labeled training data which are highly dependent on user expertise. To ensure the quality of segmentation, current evaluation strategies quantify accuracy by assessing cellular masks or through iterative inspection by pathologists. While these strategies each address either the statistical or biological aspects of segmentation, there lacks a unified approach to evaluating segmentation accuracy. RESULTS: In this article, we present ESQmodel, a Bayesian probabilistic method to evaluate single cell segmentation using expression data. By using the extracted cellular data from segmentation and a prior belief of cellular composition as input, ESQmodel computes per cell entropy to assess segmentation quality by how consistent cellular expression profiles match with cell type expectations. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code is available on Github at: https://github.com/Roth-Lab/ESQmodel.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".