RASP: Optimal Single Puncta Detection in Complex Cellular Backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Super-resolution and single-molecule microscopies have been increasingly applied to complex biological systems. A major challenge of these approaches is that fluorescent puncta must be detected in the low signal, high noise, heterogeneous background environments of cells and tissue. We present RASP, Radiality Analysis of Single Puncta, a bioimaging-segmentation method that solves this problem. RASP removes false-positive puncta that other analysis methods detect and detects features over a broad range of spatial scales: from single proteins to complex cell phenotypes. RASP outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in precision and speed using image gradients to separate Gaussian-shaped objects from the background. We demonstrate RASP's power by showing that it can extract spatial correlations between microglia, neurons, and α-synuclein oligomers in the human brain. This sensitive, computationally efficient approach enables fluorescent puncta and cellular features to be distinguished in cellular and tissue environments, with sensitivity down to the level of the single protein. Python and MATLAB codes, enabling users to perform this RASP analysis on their own data, are provided as Supporting Information and links to third-party repositories.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".