Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33502895›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology of the cell2021

Performance of deep learning restoration methods for the extraction of particle dynamics in noisy microscopy image sequences.

Paul Kefer, Fadil Iqbal, Maelle Locatelli, Josh Lawrimore, Mengdi Zhang, Kerry Bloom, Keith Bonin, Pierre-Alexandre Vidi, Jing Liu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology of the cell, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Live-cell imaging powered by computation.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2024
    Review
  5. DNA damage reduces heterogeneity and coherence of chromatin motions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul KeferDepartment of Physics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109.
Fadil IqbalDepartment of Physics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202.
Maelle LocatelliDepartment of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, and.
Josh LawrimoreDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Mengdi ZhangDepartment of Physics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202.
Kerry BloomDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
Keith BoninDepartment of Physics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109.
Pierre-Alexandre VidiDepartment of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, and.
Jing LiuDepartment of Physics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202.
Wake Forest University · USUniversity of Indianapolis · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Tumor Tissue CoreP30CA012197 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Ruben A. Mesa · 1985 to 2026
$55.4M
Chromatin mobility in response to DNA damageU01CA214282 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BONIN, KEITH D, PARDEE, TIMOTHY SEBASTIAN · 2018 to 2022
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA012197NCI NIH HHS U01 CA214282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Particle tracking in living systems requires low light exposure and short exposure times to avoid phototoxicity and photobleaching and to fully capture particle motion with high-speed imaging. Low-excitation light comes at the expense of tracking accuracy. Image restoration methods based on deep learning dramatically improve the signal-to-noise ratio in low-exposure data sets, qualitatively improving the images. However, it is not clear whether images generated by these methods yield accurate quantitative measurements such as diffusion parameters in (single) particle tracking experiments. Here, we evaluate the performance of two popular deep learning denoising software packages for particle tracking, using synthetic data sets and movies of diffusing chromatin as biological examples. With synthetic data, both supervised and unsupervised deep learning restored particle motions with high accuracy in two-dimensional data sets, whereas artifacts were introduced by the denoisers in three-dimensional data sets. Experimentally, we found that, while both supervised and unsupervised approaches improved tracking results compared with the original noisy images, supervised learning generally outperformed the unsupervised approach. We find that nicer-looking image sequences are not synonymous with more precise tracking results and highlight that deep learning algorithms can produce deceiving artifacts with extremely noisy images. Finally, we address the challenge of selecting parameters to train convolutional neural networks by implementing a frugal Bayesian optimizer that rapidly explores multidimensional parameter spaces, identifying networks yielding optimal particle tracking accuracy. Our study provides quantitative outcome measures of image restoration using deep learning. We anticipate broad application of this approach to critically evaluate artificial intelligence solutions for quantitative microscopy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtifactsArtificial IntelligenceBayes TheoremCell Line, TumorDeep LearningHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyNeural Networks, ComputerSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID33502895
PMCPMC8108534
OpenAlexW3121270120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.