Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32550136›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2020

Dense-UNet: a novel multiphoton

Sijing Cai, Yunxian Tian, Harvey Lui, Haishan Zeng, Yi Wu, Guannan Chen

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 264 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Deep learning in MRI-guided radiation therapy: A systematic review.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. BOUNDARY-AWARE INSTANCE SEGMENTATION IN MICROSCOPY IMAGING.Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quantitative assessment ofBiomedical optics express · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sijing CaiKey Laboratory of Optoelectronic Science and Technology for Medicine of Ministry of Education, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Photonics Technology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China.
Yunxian TianImaging Unit, Integrative Oncology Department, BC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Harvey LuiImaging Unit, Integrative Oncology Department, BC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Haishan ZengImaging Unit, Integrative Oncology Department, BC Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Yi WuKey Laboratory of Optoelectronic Science and Technology for Medicine of Ministry of Education, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Photonics Technology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China.
Guannan ChenKey Laboratory of Optoelectronic Science and Technology for Medicine of Ministry of Education, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Photonics Technology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China.
Fujian Normal University · CNVancouver Coastal Health · CAFujian University of Technology · CNVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiphoton microscopy (MPM) offers a feasible approach for the biopsy in clinical medicine, but it has not been used in clinical applications due to the lack of efficient image processing methods, especially the automatic segmentation technology. Segmentation technology is still one of the most challenging assignments of the MPM imaging technique.

methodsThe MPM imaging segmentation model based on deep learning is one of the most effective methods to address this problem. In this paper, the practicability of using a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to segment the MPM image of skin cells

resultsSixty training images were taken from the dorsal forearm using a femtosecond Ti:Sa laser running at 735 nm. The resolution of the images is 128×128 pixels. Experimental results confirmed that the accuracy of Dense-UNet (92.54%) was higher than that of U-Net (88.59%), with a significantly lower loss value of 0.1681. The 90.60% Dice coefficient value of Dense-UNet outperformed U-Net by 11.07%. The F1-Score of Dense-UNet, U-Net, and Seg-Net was 93.35%, 90.02%, and 85.04%, respectively.

conclusionsThe deepened down-sampling path improved the ability of the model to capture cellular fined-detailed boundary features, while the symmetrical up-sampling path provided a more accurate location based on the test result. These results were the first time that the segmentation of MPM

Indexed as

dense-UNetimage segmentationmultiphoton microscopy (MPM)Skin in vivoU-Net

Identifiers

PMID32550136
PMCPMC7276369
OpenAlexW3030515889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.