MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057190365

Human Metaphase Chromosome Analysis using Image Processing

2014· article· en· W7057190365 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCentromereSister chromatidsMetaphaseChromosomeSet (abstract data type)Giemsa stainChromatidPattern recognition (psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of an effective human metaphase chromosome analysis algorithm can optimize expert time usage by increasing the efficiency of many clinical diagnosis processes. Although many methods exist in the literature, they are only applicable for limited morphological variations and are specific to the staining method used during cell preparation. They are also highly influenced by irregular chromosome boundaries as well as the presence of artifacts such as premature sister chromatid separation.\nTherefore an algorithm is proposed in this research which can operate with any morphological variation of the chromosome across images from multiple staining methods. The proposed algorithm is capable of calculating the segmentation outline, the centerline (which gives the chromosome length), partitioning of the telomere regions and the centromere location of a given chromosome. The algorithm also detects and corrects for the sister chromatid separation artifact in metaphase cell images. A metric termed the Candidate Based Centromere Confidence (CBCC) is proposed to accompany each centromere detection result of the proposed method, giving an indication of the confidence the algorithm has on a given localization.\nThe proposed method was first tested for the ability of calculating an accurate width profile against a centerline based method [1] using 226 chromosomes. A statistical analysis of the centromere detection error values proved that the proposed method can accurately locate centromere locations with statistical significance. Furthermore, the proposed method performed more consistently across different staining methods in comparison to the centerline based approach. When tested with a larger data set of 1400 chromosomes collected from a set of DAPI (4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) and Giemsa stained cell images, the proposed candidate based centromere detection algorithm was able to accurately localize 1220 centromere locations yielding a detection accuracy of 87%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207