ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2019
A neural network approach to analyze cross-sections of muscle fibers in pathological images.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based image analysis in muscle histopathology using photo-realistic synthetic data.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Quantitative analysis of the dexamethasone side effect on human-derived young and aged skeletal muscle by myotube and nuclei segmentation using deep learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- MyoV: a deep learning-based tool for the automated quantification of muscle fibers.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Morphological characteristics of muscle fibers, such as their cross-sections, are important indicators of the health and function of the musculoskeletal system. However, manual analysis of muscle fiber morphology is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process that is prone to errors. Overall, the procedure involves high inter- and intra-observer variability. Therefore, it is desirable for biologists to have a tool that can produce objective and reproducible analysis for muscle fiber images. In this work, we propose a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) followed by post-processing for detecting and measuring the cross-sections of muscle fibers. We evaluate three segmentation networks for muscle boundary segmentation: (1) U-net, (2) FusionNet, and (3) a customized FusionNet. The customized FusionNet, which had the highest Dice coefficient on the test set, was used for subsequent morphological analysis of the muscle fibers. The proposed method was tested on microscopic images of the tibialis anterior muscles of a pre-clinical model of muscular dystrophy. The dataset contained four mosaic images, totalling more than 3400 fibers. Because of the severity of muscle injury in this pre-clinical model, its muscle fiber images present a challenge for quantitative analysis for several reasons. First, the muscle fibers had inhomogeneous spatial distribution and very different sizes. Second, the membranes of the muscle fibers had uneven signal intensity due to the loss of a membrane protein. Third, the shapes of intact muscle fibers were very different. All these factors contributed to the difficulty of acquiring good training data in the first place. Despite these difficulties, we achieved an average muscle fiber overlay precision of 0.65 and an average recall of 0.49. In this context, overlaid fibers are defined as fibers that have one or more pixels overlaying in the manual and DCNN cross-section segmentation. For the overlaid fibers, the proposed method achieved excellent segmentation accuracy of 94% ± 10.26%, as measured by the Dice-Sorensen coefficient.
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.