ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2020
Detecting Differences of Fluorescent Markers Distribution in Single Cell Microscopy: Textural or Pointillist Feature Space?
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We consider the detection of change in spatial distribution of fluorescent markers inside cells imaged by single cell microscopy. Such problems are important in bioimaging since the density of these markers can reflect the healthy or pathological state of cells, the spatial organization of DNA, or cell cycle stage. With the new super-resolved microscopes and associated microfluidic devices, bio-markers can be detected in single cells individually or collectively as a texture depending on the quality of the microscope impulse response. In this work, we propose, via numerical simulations, to address detection of changes in spatial density or in spatial clustering with an individual (pointillist) or collective (textural) approach by comparing their performances according to the size of the impulse response of the microscope. Pointillist approaches show good performances for small impulse response sizes only, while all textural approaches are found to overcome pointillist approaches with small as well as with large impulse response sizes. These results are validated with real fluorescence microscopy images with conventional resolution. This, a priori non-intuitive result in the perspective of the quest of super-resolution, demonstrates that, for difference detection tasks in single cell microscopy, super-resolved microscopes may not be mandatory and that lower cost, sub-resolved, microscopes can be sufficient.
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.