Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26472075›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Survey statistics of automated segmentations applied to optical imaging of mammalian cells.

Peter Bajcsy, Antonio Cardone, Joe Chalfoun, Michael Halter, Derek Juba, Marcin Kociolek, Michael Majurski, Adele Peskin, Carl Simon, Mylene Simon and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Automated Measurement of Cobblestone Morphology for Characterizing Stem Cell Derived Retinal Pigment Epithelial Cell Cultures.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter BajcsyInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. peter.bajcsy@nist.gov.
Antonio CardoneInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. antonio.cardone@nist.gov.
Joe ChalfounInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. joe.chalfoun@nist.gov.
Michael HalterMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. michael.halter@nist.gov.
Derek JubaInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. derek.juba@nist.gov.
Marcin KociolekLodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland. marcin.kociolek@gmail.com.
Michael MajurskiInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. michael.majurski@nist.gov.
Adele PeskinInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. adele.peskin@nist.gov.
Carl SimonMaterial Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. carl.simon@nist.gov.
Mylene SimonInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. mylene.simon@nist.gov.
Antoine VandecremeInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. antoine.vandecreme@nist.gov.
Mary BradyInformation Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. mary.brady@nist.gov.
National Institute of Standards and Technology · USLodz University of Technology · PLMaterial Measurement Laboratory · USPhysical Measurement Laboratory · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this survey paper is to overview cellular measurements using optical microscopy imaging followed by automated image segmentation. The cellular measurements of primary interest are taken from mammalian cells and their components. They are denoted as two- or three-dimensional (2D or 3D) image objects of biological interest. In our applications, such cellular measurements are important for understanding cell phenomena, such as cell counts, cell-scaffold interactions, cell colony growth rates, or cell pluripotency stability, as well as for establishing quality metrics for stem cell therapies. In this context, this survey paper is focused on automated segmentation as a software-based measurement leading to quantitative cellular measurements.

methodsWe define the scope of this survey and a classification schema first. Next, all found and manually filteredpublications are classified according to the main categories: (1) objects of interests (or objects to be segmented), (2) imaging modalities, (3) digital data axes, (4) segmentation algorithms, (5) segmentation evaluations, (6) computational hardware platforms used for segmentation acceleration, and (7) object (cellular) measurements. Finally, all classified papers are converted programmatically into a set of hyperlinked web pages with occurrence and co-occurrence statistics of assigned categories.

resultsThe survey paper presents to a reader: (a) the state-of-the-art overview of published papers about automated segmentation applied to optical microscopy imaging of mammalian cells, (b) a classification of segmentation aspects in the context of cell optical imaging, (c) histogram and co-occurrence summary statistics about cellular measurements, segmentations, segmented objects, segmentation evaluations, and the use of computational platforms for accelerating segmentation execution, and (d) open research problems to pursue.

conclusionsThe novel contributions of this survey paper are: (1) a new type of classification of cellular measurements and automated segmentation, (2) statistics about the published literature, and (3) a web hyperlinked interface to classification statistics of the surveyed papers at https://isg.nist.gov/deepzoomweb/resources/survey/index.html.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsOptical ImagingAnimalsAutomationHumansMicroscopy

Identifiers

PMID26472075
PMCPMC4608288
OpenAlexW2138364546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.