Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31313519›Full record

ArticleCytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology2019

Evaluation of Deep Learning Strategies for Nucleus Segmentation in Fluorescence Images.

Juan C Caicedo, Jonathan Roth, Allen Goodman, Tim Becker, Kyle W Karhohs, Matthieu Broisin, Csaba Molnar, Claire McQuin, Shantanu Singh, Fabian J Theis and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing 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

127 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Image Analysis Approaches for In Situ Hybridization Technologies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Understanding Channel Complementarity for Multiplex Cell Segmentation.ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 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

11 authors.

Juan C CaicedoImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-4631
Jonathan RothImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Allen GoodmanImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Tim BeckerImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kyle W KarhohsImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Matthieu BroisinImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Csaba MolnarImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Claire McQuinImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Shantanu SinghImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-3150-3025
Fabian J TheisInstitute of Computational Biology, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
Anne E CarpenterImaging Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-1555-8261

Funding

Extracting rich information from biological imagesR35GM122547 · NIGMS · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI Anne E. Carpenter · 2017 to 2026
$6.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying nuclei is often a critical first step in analyzing microscopy images of cells and classical image processing algorithms are most commonly used for this task. Recent developments in deep learning can yield superior accuracy, but typical evaluation metrics for nucleus segmentation do not satisfactorily capture error modes that are relevant in cellular images. We present an evaluation framework to measure accuracy, types of errors, and computational efficiency; and use it to compare deep learning strategies and classical approaches. We publicly release a set of 23,165 manually annotated nuclei and source code to reproduce experiments and run the proposed evaluation methodology. Our evaluation framework shows that deep learning improves accuracy and can reduce the number of biologically relevant errors by half. © 2019 The Authors. Cytometry Part A published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.

Indexed as

Cell NucleusCell LineData AccuracyDeep LearningFluorescenceHumansImage CytometryImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopy, Fluorescencechemical screendeep learningfluorescence imagingimage analysisnuclear segmentation

Identifiers

PMID31313519
PMCPMC6771982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.