Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32193485›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Test-time augmentation for deep learning-based cell segmentation on microscopy images.

Nikita Moshkov, Botond Mathe, Attila Kertesz-Farkas, Reka Hollandi, Peter Horvath

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Ensemble Deep Learning Object Detection Fusion for Cell Tracking, Mitosis, and Lineage.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nikita MoshkovBiological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary.
Botond MatheBiological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary.
Attila Kertesz-FarkasNational Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Reka HollandiBiological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary.
Peter HorvathBiological Research Centre, Szeged, Hungary. horvath.peter@brc.hu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advancements in deep learning have revolutionized the way microscopy images of cells are processed. Deep learning network architectures have a large number of parameters, thus, in order to reach high accuracy, they require a massive amount of annotated data. A common way of improving accuracy builds on the artificial increase of the training set by using different augmentation techniques. A less common way relies on test-time augmentation (TTA) which yields transformed versions of the image for prediction and the results are merged. In this paper we describe how we have incorporated the test-time argumentation prediction method into two major segmentation approaches utilized in the single-cell analysis of microscopy images. These approaches are semantic segmentation based on the U-Net, and instance segmentation based on the Mask R-CNN models. Our findings show that even if only simple test-time augmentations (such as rotation or flipping and proper merging methods) are applied, TTA can significantly improve prediction accuracy. We have utilized images of tissue and cell cultures from the Data Science Bowl (DSB) 2018 nuclei segmentation competition and other sources. Additionally, boosting the highest-scoring method of the DSB with TTA, we could further improve prediction accuracy, and our method has reached an ever-best score at the DSB.

Identifiers

PMID32193485
PMCPMC7081314

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.