ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2015
Efficient semi-automatic 3D segmentation for neuron tracing in electron microscopy images.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flexible Learning-Free Segmentation and Reconstruction of Neural Volumes.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- A Segmentation Scheme for Complex Neuronal Arbors and Application to Vibration Sensitive Neurons in the Honeybee Brain.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2018Article
- Microscopy Image Browser: A Platform for Segmentation and Analysis of Multidimensional Datasets.PLoS biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the area of connectomics, there is a significant gap between the time required for data acquisition and dense reconstruction of the neural processes contained in the same dataset. Automatic methods are able to eliminate this timing gap, but the state-of-the-art accuracy so far is insufficient for use without user corrections. If completed naively, this process of correction can be tedious and time consuming. NEW
methodWe present a new semi-automatic method that can be used to perform 3D segmentation of neurites in EM image stacks. It utilizes an automatic method that creates a hierarchical structure for recommended merges of superpixels. The user is then guided through each predicted region to quickly identify errors and establish correct links.
resultsWe tested our method on three datasets with both novice and expert users. Accuracy and timing were compared with published automatic, semi-automatic, and manual results. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsPost-automatic correction methods have also been used in Mishchenko et al. (2010) and Haehn et al. (2014). These methods do not provide navigation or suggestions in the manner we present. Other semi-automatic methods require user input prior to the automatic segmentation such as Jeong et al. (2009) and Cardona et al. (2010) and are inherently different than our method.
conclusionUsing this method on the three datasets, novice users achieved accuracy exceeding state-of-the-art automatic results, and expert users achieved accuracy on par with full manual labeling but with a 70% time improvement when compared with other examples in publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.