Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32864421›Full record

ArticleInformatics in medicine unlocked2020

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction.

Sarala Padi, Petru Manescu, Nicholas Schaub, Nathan Hotaling, Carl Simon, Kapil Bharti, Peter Bajcsy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Informatics in medicine unlocked, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Sarala PadiITL, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Petru ManescuITL, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Nicholas SchaubNational Eye Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Nathan HotalingNational Eye Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Carl SimonMML, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Kapil BhartiNational Eye Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter BajcsyITL, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Funding

Tissue Engineering and RegenerationT32DE007057 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DAVID H. KOHN · 1985 to 2026
$17.3M
Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NISTNIDCR NIH HHS T32 DE007057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) cell functions in stem cell implants using non-invasive bright field microscopy imaging is a critical task for clinical deployment of stem cell therapies. Such cell function predictions can be carried out using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based models. In this paper we used Traditional Machine Learning (TML) and Deep Learning (DL) based AI models for cell function prediction tasks. TML models depend on feature engineering and DL models perform feature engineering automatically but have higher modeling complexity. This work aims at exploring the tradeoffs between three approaches using TML and DL based models for RPE cell function prediction from microscopy images and at understanding the accuracy relationship between pixel-, cell feature-, and implant label-level accuracies of models. Among the three compared approaches to cell function prediction, the direct approach to cell function prediction from images is slightly more accurate in comparison to indirect approaches using intermediate segmentation and/or feature engineering steps. We also evaluated accuracy variations with respect to model selections (five TML models and two DL models) and model configurations (with and without transfer learning). Finally, we quantified the relationships between segmentation accuracy and the number of samples used for training a model, segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, and cell feature error and accuracy of implant labels. We concluded that for the RPE cell data set, there is a monotonic relationship between the number of training samples and image segmentation accuracy, and between segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, but there is no such a relationship between segmentation accuracy and accuracy of RPE implant labels.

Indexed as

Age-related macular degenerationCell function predictionCell segmentationDeep learningRetinal Pigment Epithelium CellTrans-Epithelial ResistanceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor

Identifiers

PMID32864421
PMCPMC7450761

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.