ArticlePloS one2017
Deep vector-based convolutional neural network approach for automatic recognition of colonies of induced pluripotent stem cells.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proteomic Signatures in Extracellular Vesicles as Predictive Markers of Neural and Cardiac Differentiation from Human iPSCs.Mass spectrometry (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Chondrogenic Differentiation of Stem Cells for Cartilage Regeneration: Advances and Future Perspectives.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Review
- How artificial intelligence can enable personalized mesenchymal stem cell-based therapeutic strategies in systemic lupus erythematosus.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Development of Standardized Methods and Analytical Tools.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in regenerative dentistry: promoting stem cell therapy and the scaffold development.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Article
- Automated human induced pluripotent stem cell colony segmentation for use in cell culture automation applications.SLAS technology · 2023Article
- SIC50: Determining drug inhibitory concentrations using a vision transformer and an optimized Sobel operator.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Deep learning models for cancer stem cell detection: a brief review.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Moving Towards Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-based Therapies with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2022Review
- Review
- Exploring the Current Trends of Artificial Intelligence in Stem Cell Therapy: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2021Review
- Recent trends in stem cell-based therapies and applications of artificial intelligence in regenerative medicine.World journal of stem cells · 2021Review
- Deep learning enables automated localization of the metastatic lymph node for thyroid cancer onScientific reports · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pluripotent stem cells can potentially be used in clinical applications as a model for studying disease progress. This tracking of disease-causing events in cells requires constant assessment of the quality of stem cells. Existing approaches are inadequate for robust and automated differentiation of stem cell colonies. In this study, we developed a new model of vector-based convolutional neural network (V-CNN) with respect to extracted features of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) colony for distinguishing colony characteristics. A transfer function from the feature vectors to the virtual image was generated at the front of the CNN in order for classification of feature vectors of healthy and unhealthy colonies. The robustness of the proposed V-CNN model in distinguishing colonies was compared with that of the competitive support vector machine (SVM) classifier based on morphological, textural, and combined features. Additionally, five-fold cross-validation was used to investigate the performance of the V-CNN model. The precision, recall, and F-measure values of the V-CNN model were comparatively higher than those of the SVM classifier, with a range of 87-93%, indicating fewer false positives and false negative rates. Furthermore, for determining the quality of colonies, the V-CNN model showed higher accuracy values based on morphological (95.5%), textural (91.0%), and combined (93.2%) features than those estimated with the SVM classifier (86.7, 83.3, and 83.4%, respectively). Similarly, the accuracy of the feature sets using five-fold cross-validation was above 90% for the V-CNN model, whereas that yielded by the SVM model was in the range of 75-77%. We thus concluded that the proposed V-CNN model outperforms the conventional SVM classifier, which strongly suggests that it as a reliable framework for robust colony classification of iPSCs. It can also serve as a cost-effective quality recognition tool during culture and other experimental procedures.
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.