ReviewBMC bioinformatics2019
Cell segmentation methods for label-free contrast microscopy: review and comprehensive comparison.
Review in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 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
83 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Celldetective, an AI-enhanced image analysis tool for unraveling dynamic cell interactions.eLife · 2026Article
- Review
- Progress and new challenges in image-based profiling.Molecular systems biology · 2026Review
- Accelerated discovery of cell migration regulators using label-free deep learning-based automated tracking.Science advances · 2026Article
- Profiling extracellular matrix-driven heterogeneity of single cell migration and morphology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Facile Method Based on Faster R-CNN for Cell Detection in Microfluidic Devices.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- An automated cell-tracking pipeline for the analysis of neutrophil dynamics.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Spatially resolved single-cell-based histocytomorphometry for growth plate analysis across multiple species.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- From cells to pixels: A decision tree for designing bioimage analysis pipelines.Journal of microscopy · 2025Article
- Quantitative analysis of human umbilical vein endothelial cell morphology and tubulogenesis.Journal of microscopy · 2025Article
- Universal consensus 3D segmentation of cells from 2D segmented stacks.Nature methods · 2025Article
- 3DCellComposer - A versatile pipeline utilizing 2D cell segmentation methods for 3D cell segmentation.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2025Article
- YeastSAM: A Deep Learning Model for Accurate Segmentation of Budding Yeast Cells.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Deep learning in chromatin organization: from super-resolution microscopy to clinical applications.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Review
- Article
- Phase-augmented deep learning for cell segmentation in wrapped quantitative phase images.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Accessible and accurate cytometry analysis of adherent cells using fluorescence microscopes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Topological data analysis of pattern formation of human induced pluripotent stem cell colonies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundBecause of its non-destructive nature, label-free imaging is an important strategy for studying biological processes. However, routine microscopic techniques like phase contrast or DIC suffer from shadow-cast artifacts making automatic segmentation challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the segmentation efficacy of published steps of segmentation work-flow (image reconstruction, foreground segmentation, cell detection (seed-point extraction) and cell (instance) segmentation) on a dataset of the same cells from multiple contrast microscopic modalities.
resultsWe built a collection of routines aimed at image segmentation of viable adherent cells grown on the culture dish acquired by phase contrast, differential interference contrast, Hoffman modulation contrast and quantitative phase imaging, and we performed a comprehensive comparison of available segmentation methods applicable for label-free data. We demonstrated that it is crucial to perform the image reconstruction step, enabling the use of segmentation methods originally not applicable on label-free images. Further we compared foreground segmentation methods (thresholding, feature-extraction, level-set, graph-cut, learning-based), seed-point extraction methods (Laplacian of Gaussians, radial symmetry and distance transform, iterative radial voting, maximally stable extremal region and learning-based) and single cell segmentation methods. We validated suitable set of methods for each microscopy modality and published them online.
conclusionsWe demonstrate that image reconstruction step allows the use of segmentation methods not originally intended for label-free imaging. In addition to the comprehensive comparison of methods, raw and reconstructed annotated data and Matlab codes are provided.
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.