ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
A novel machine learning based approach for iPS progenitor cell identification.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vivo Direct Reprogramming: Current Progress and Future Prospects from Mechanisms to Therapeutic Application.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Integrating MIKE model simulations with CNNs for rapid and accurate urban flood prediction.iScience · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven nano-enhanced stem cell therapy for neurodegenerative diseases: from rational design to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Machine Learning in Stem Cell Research: From Biological Data to Clinical Translation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Advancements in theFrontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
- Noninvasive, label-free image approaches to predict multimodal molecular markers in pluripotency assessment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- AI-organoid integrated systems for biomedical studies and applications.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2024Review
- The use of artificial intelligence in induced pluripotent stem cell-based technology over 10-year period: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Automated human induced pluripotent stem cell colony segmentation for use in cell culture automation applications.SLAS technology · 2023Article
- A Weakly Supervised Learning Method for Cell Detection and Tracking Using Incomplete Initial Annotations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Recent Approaches to Design and Analysis of Electrical Impedance Systems for Single Cells Using Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Single-Cell Classification Based on Population Nucleus Size Combining Microwave Impedance Spectroscopy and Machine Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Artificial-Intelligence-Based Imaging Analysis of Stem Cells: A Systematic Scoping Review.Biology · 2022Article
- Moving Towards Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-based Therapies with Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2022Review
- Single cell Raman spectroscopy to identify different stages of proliferating human hepatocytes for cell therapy.Stem cell research & therapy · 2021Article
- Nisin and non-essential amino acids: new perspective in differentiation of neural progenitors from human-induced pluripotent stem cells in vitro.Human cell · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) progenitor cells, the iPS forming cells in early stage of reprogramming, could provide valuable information for studying the origin and underlying mechanism of iPS cells. However, it is very difficult to identify experimentally since there are no biomarkers known for early progenitor cells, and only about 6 days after reprogramming initiation, iPS cells can be experimentally determined via fluorescent probes. What is more, the ratio of progenitor cells during early reprograming period is below 5%, which is too low to capture experimentally in the early stage. In this paper, we propose a novel computational approach for the identification of iPS progenitor cells based on machine learning and microscopic image analysis. Firstly, we record the reprogramming process using a live cell imaging system after 48 hours of infection with retroviruses expressing Oct4, Sox2 and Klf4, later iPS progenitor cells and normal murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) within 3 to 5 days after infection are labeled by retrospectively tracing the time-lapse microscopic image. We then calculate 11 types of cell morphological and motion features such as area, speed, etc., and select best time windows for modeling and perform feature selection. Finally, a prediction model using XGBoost is built based on the selected six types of features and best time windows. Our model allows several missing values/frames in the sample datasets, thus it is applicable to a wide range of scenarios. Cross-validation, holdout validation and independent test experiments show that the minimum precision is above 52%, that is, the ratio of predicted progenitor cells within 3 to 5 days after viral infection is above 52%. The results also confirm that the morphology and motion pattern of iPS progenitor cells is different from that of normal MEFs, which helps with the machine learning methods for iPS progenitor cell identification.
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.