ArticleScientific reports2019
Deep learning-based optical field screening for robust optical diffraction tomography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances and Current Trends in Transmission Tomographic Diffraction Microscopy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A semi-supervised deep-learning approach for automatic crystal structure classification.Journal of applied crystallography · 2022Article
- Rapid species identification of pathogenic bacteria from a minute quantity exploiting three-dimensional quantitative phase imaging and artificial neural network.Light, science & applications · 2022Article
- Applying a deep convolutional neural network to monitor the lateral spread response during microvascular surgery for hemifacial spasm.PloS one · 2022Article
- Label-Free White Blood Cell Classification Using Refractive Index Tomography and Deep Learning.BME frontiers · 2021Article
- Wolf phase tomography (WPT) of transparent structures using partially coherent illumination.Light, science & applications · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In tomographic reconstruction, the image quality of the reconstructed images can be significantly degraded by defects in the measured two-dimensional (2D) raw image data. Despite the importance of screening defective 2D images for robust tomographic reconstruction, manual inspection and rule-based automation suffer from low-throughput and insufficient accuracy, respectively. Here, we present deep learning-enabled quality control for holographic data to produce robust and high-throughput optical diffraction tomography (ODT). The key idea is to distil the knowledge of an expert into a deep convolutional neural network. We built an extensive database of optical field images with clean/noisy annotations, and then trained a binary-classification network based upon the data. The trained network outperformed visual inspection by non-expert users and a widely used rule-based algorithm, with >90% test accuracy. Subsequently, we confirmed that the superior screening performance significantly improved the tomogram quality. To further confirm the trained model's performance and generalisability, we evaluated it on unseen biological cell data obtained with a setup that was not used to generate the training dataset. Lastly, we interpreted the trained model using various visualisation techniques that provided the saliency map underlying each model inference. We envision the proposed network would a powerful lightweight module in the tomographic reconstruction pipeline.
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.