Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31253078›Full record

ReviewBMC bioinformatics2019

Cell segmentation methods for label-free contrast microscopy: review and comprehensive comparison.

Tomas Vicar, Jan Balvan, Josef Jaros, Florian Jug, Radim Kolar, Michal Masarik, Jaromir Gumulec

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tomas VicarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Communication, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 3058/10, Brno, CZ-61600, Czech Republic.
Jan BalvanDepartment of Pathological Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, CZ-62500, Czech Republic.
Josef JarosDepartment of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, CZ-62500, Czech Republic.
Florian JugMax Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Pfotenhauerstr. 108, Dresden, DE-01307, Germany.
Radim KolarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Communication, Brno University of Technology, Technicka 3058/10, Brno, CZ-61600, Czech Republic.
Michal MasarikDepartment of Pathological Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, CZ-62500, Czech Republic.
Jaromir GumulecDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, Brno, CZ-62500, Czech Republic. j.gumulec@med.muni.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9658-3444

Funding

Grantová Agentura České Republiky GACR 18-24089SMasaryk University MUNI/A/1298/2017Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine funds to Junior Researcher (Jaromir Gumulec)
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsCell FractionationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyCell segmentationDifferential contrast imageImage reconstructionLaplacian of GaussiansMethods comparisonMicroscopyQuantitative phase imaging

Identifiers

PMID31253078
PMCPMC6599268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.