ArticleIEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics2019
Automatic Graph-Based Modeling of Brain Microvessels Captured With Two-Photon Microscopy.
Article in IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving microvascular brain analysis with adversarial learning for OCT-TPM vascular domain translation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Masked Vascular Structure Segmentation and Completion in Retinal Images.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2025Article
- Evaluating segment anything model (SAM) on MRI scans of brain tumors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cortical microvascular blood flow velocity mapping by combining dynamic light scattering optical coherence tomography and two-photon microscopy.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023Article
- Toward next-generation endoscopes integrating biomimetic video systems, nonlinear optical microscopy, and deep learning.Biophysics reviews · 2023Review
- Ultraliser: a framework for creating multiscale, high-fidelity and geometrically realistic 3D models for in silico neuroscience.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Multi-perspective label based deep learning framework for cerebral vasculature segmentation in whole-brain fluorescence images.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Challenges and opportunities of integrating imaging and mathematical modelling to interrogate biological processes.The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology · 2022Review
- It's clearly the heart! Optical transparency, cardiac tissue imaging, and computer modelling.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2022Article
- Segmentation-Less, Automated, Vascular Vectorization.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- A simulation study investigating potential diffusion-based MRI signatures of microstrokes.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Interactive visualization and analysis of morphological skeletons of brain vasculature networks with VessMorphoVis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Anatomical Modeling of Brain Vasculature in Two-Photon Microscopy by Generalizable Deep Learning.BME frontiers · 2020Article
- A Pilot Study Investigating Changes in Capillary Hemodynamics and Its Modulation by Exercise in the APP-PS1 Alzheimer Mouse Model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Graph models of cerebral vasculature derived from two-photon microscopy have shown to be relevant to study brain microphysiology. Automatic graphing of these microvessels remain problematic due to the vascular network complexity and two-photon sensitivity limitations with depth. In this paper, we propose a fully automatic processing pipeline to address this issue. The modeling scheme consists of a fully-convolution neural network to segment microvessels, a three-dimensional surface model generator, and a geometry contraction algorithm to produce graphical models with a single connected component. Based on a quantitative assessment using NetMets metrics, at a tolerance of 60 μm, false negative and false positive geometric error 19 rates are 3.8% and 4.2%, respectively, whereas false nega- 20 tive and false positive topological error rates are 6.1% and 4.5%, respectively. Our qualitative evaluation confirms the efficiency of our scheme in generating useful and accurate graphical 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.