ArticleNeuroinformatics2019
Automated Neuron Detection in High-Content Fluorescence Microscopy Images Using Machine Learning.
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping spatial organization of in vitro neuronal networks using high-content imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bridging the Brain and Data Sciences.Big data · 2021Article
- Sensitivity-Enhancing Strategies in Optical Biosensing.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2021Review
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The study of neuronal morphology in relation to function, and the development of effective medicines to positively impact this relationship in patients suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, increasingly involves image-based high-content screening and analysis. The first critical step toward fully automated high-content image analyses in such studies is to detect all neuronal cells and distinguish them from possible non-neuronal cells or artifacts in the images. Here we investigate the performance of well-established machine learning techniques for this purpose. These include support vector machines, random forests, k-nearest neighbors, and generalized linear model classifiers, operating on an extensive set of image features extracted using the compound hierarchy of algorithms representing morphology, and the scale-invariant feature transform. We present experiments on a dataset of rat hippocampal neurons from our own studies to find the most suitable classifier(s) and subset(s) of features in the common practical setting where there is very limited annotated data for training. The results indicate that a random forests classifier using the right feature subset ranks best for the considered task, although its performance is not statistically significantly better than some support vector machine based classification models.
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.