Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27390931›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2015

An image database of Drosophila melanogaster wings for phenomic and biometric analysis.

Anne Sonnenschein, David VanderZee, William R Pitchers, Sudarshan Chari, Ian Dworkin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Learning Probabilistic Piecewise Rigid Atlases of Model Organisms via Generative Deep Networks.Information processing in medical imaging : proceedings of the ... conference · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. PeerJ · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne SonnenscheinGenetics Graduate Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
David VanderZeeDepartment of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
William R PitchersBEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Sudarshan ChariBEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Ian DworkinGenetics Graduate Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. dworkin@mcmaster.ca.
Michigan State University · USMcMaster University · CA

Funding

OXIDANT MECHANISMS IN DRUG-INDUCED HEPATIC NECROSISR01GM044263 · NIGMS · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI SMITH, CHARLES VINCENT · 1990 to 2006
$1.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM044263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracting important descriptors and features from images of biological specimens is an ongoing challenge. Features are often defined using landmarks and semi-landmarks that are determined a priori based on criteria such as homology or some other measure of biological significance. An alternative, widely used strategy uses computational pattern recognition, in which features are acquired from the image de novo. Subsets of these features are then selected based on objective criteria. Computational pattern recognition has been extensively developed primarily for the classification of samples into groups, whereas landmark methods have been broadly applied to biological inference.

resultsTo compare these approaches and to provide a general community resource, we have constructed an image database of Drosophila melanogaster wings - individually identifiable and organized by sex, genotype and replicate imaging system - for the development and testing of measurement and classification tools for biological images. We have used this database to evaluate the relative performance of current classification strategies. Several supervised parametric and nonparametric machine learning algorithms were used on principal components extracted from geometric morphometric shape data (landmarks and semi-landmarks). For comparison, we also classified phenotypes based on de novo features extracted from wing images using several computer vision and pattern recognition methods as implemented in the Bioimage Classification and Annotation Tool (BioCAT).

conclusionsBecause we were able to thoroughly evaluate these strategies using the publicly available Drosophila wing database, we believe that this resource will facilitate the development and testing of new tools for the measurement and classification of complex biological phenotypes.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, FactualGenotypeAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterFemaleImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleWings, AnimalComputer visionDrosophilaGeometric morphometricsMutantsPhenomicsWing shape

Identifiers

PMID27390931
PMCPMC4942975
OpenAlexW2141983233

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.