NeuroQuantify – An image analysis software for detection and quantification of neuron cells and neurite lengths using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The segmentation of cells and neurites in microscopy images of neuronal networks provides valuable quantitative information about neuron growth and neuronal differentiation, including the number of cells, neurites, neurite length and neurite orientation. This information is essential for assessing the development of neuronal networks in response to extracellular stimuli, which is useful for studying neuronal structures, for example, the study of neurodegenerative diseases and pharmaceuticals. NEW METHOD: We have developed NeuroQuantify, an open-source software that uses deep learning to efficiently and quickly segment cells and neurites in phase contrast microscopy images. RESULTS: NeuroQuantify offers several key features: (i) automatic detection of cells and neurites; (ii) post-processing of the images for the quantitative neurite length measurement based on segmentation of phase contrast microscopy images, and (iii) identification of neurite orientations. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: NeuroQuantify overcomes some of the limitations of existing methods in the automatic and accurate analysis of neuronal structures. It has been developed for phase contrast images rather than fluorescence images. In addition to typical functionality of cell counting, NeuroQuantify also detects and counts neurites, measures the neurite lengths, and produces the neurite orientation distribution. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a valuable tool to assess network development rapidly and effectively. The user-friendly NeuroQuantify software can be installed and freely downloaded from GitHub at https://github.com/StanleyZ0528/neural-image-segmentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".