ArticleScientific reports2018
Neural network control of focal position during time-lapse microscopy of cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital defocus aberration interference for automated optical microscopy.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Autofocus Control on aBiosensors · 2026Article
- Establishing a reference focal plane using convolutional neural networks and beads for brightfield imaging.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Rectangular Amplitude Mask-Based Auto-Focus Method with a Large Range and High Precision for a Micro-LED Wafer Defects Detection System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Machine learning-based detection of label-free cancer stem-like cell fate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Nonmechanical parfocal and autofocus features based on wave propagation distribution in lensfree holographic microscopy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Deep Learning in Image Cytometry: A Review.Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Live-cell microscopy is quickly becoming an indispensable technique for studying the dynamics of cellular processes. Maintaining the specimen in focus during image acquisition is crucial for high-throughput applications, especially for long experiments or when a large sample is being continuously scanned. Automated focus control methods are often expensive, imperfect, or ill-adapted to a specific application and are a bottleneck for widespread adoption of high-throughput, live-cell imaging. Here, we demonstrate a neural network approach for automatically maintaining focus during bright-field microscopy. Z-stacks of yeast cells growing in a microfluidic device were collected and used to train a convolutional neural network to classify images according to their z-position. We studied the effect on prediction accuracy of the various hyperparameters of the neural network, including downsampling, batch size, and z-bin resolution. The network was able to predict the z-position of an image with ±1 μm accuracy, outperforming human annotators. Finally, we used our neural network to control microscope focus in real-time during a 24 hour growth experiment. The method robustly maintained the correct focal position compensating for 40 μm of focal drift and was insensitive to changes in the field of view. About ~100 annotated z-stacks were required to train the network making our method quite practical for custom autofocus applications.
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.