ArticleInformatics in medicine unlocked2020
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep learning framework for gender sensitive speech emotion recognition based on MFCC feature selection and SHAP analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Recent Progress in Retinal Pigment Epithelium Cell-Based Therapy for Retinal Disease.Stem cells translational medicine · 2024Review
- Operationalizing the Use of Biofabricated Tissue Models as Preclinical Screening Platforms for Drug Discovery and Development.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
32864421PMC7450761What 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.