RETINA: Reconstruction-based Pre-Trained Enhanced TransUNet for Electron Microscopy Segmentation on the CEM500K Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Electron microscopy (EM) has revolutionized our understanding of cellular structures at the nanoscale. Accurate image segmentation is required for analyzing EM images. While manual segmentation is reliable, it is labor-intensive, incentivizing the development of automated segmentation methods. Although deep learning-based segmentation has shown promise, its accuracy to automatically segment cellular structures in EM data remains insufficient compared to expert manual results. Current approaches usually use either convolutional or transformer-based neural networks for image feature extraction. We developed the RETINA method, which combines pre-training on the large, unlabeled CEM500K EM image dataset with a hybrid neural-network model architecture that integrates both local (convolutional layer) and global (transformer layer) image processing to learn from manual image annotations. RETINA outperformed existing models on cellular structure segmentation on five public EM datasets. This improvement works toward automated cellular structure segmentation for the EM community. Data and code are available at Zenodo and GitHub .
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".