Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33830015›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

CEM500K, a large-scale heterogeneous unlabeled cellular electron microscopy image dataset for deep learning.

Ryan Conrad, Kedar Narayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Morphomics via next-generation electron microscopy.Journal of molecular cell biology · 2024
    Review
  9. Electron Microscopy Techniques for 3D Plant ER Imaging.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 3D surface reconstruction of cellular cryo-soft X-ray microscopy tomograms using semisupervised deep learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Volume electron microscopy.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Ryan ConradCenter for Molecular Microscopy, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.
Kedar NarayanCenter for Molecular Microscopy, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-6494

Funding

WORK ORDER 126643 B539 EXPAND IC SUITE75N91019D00024 · NIAID · LEIDOS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, INC. · PI BRISCOE, LYNN · 2019 to 2025
$3932.6M
NCI NIH HHS 75N91019D00024NCI NIH HHS Contract No. 75N91019D00024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated segmentation of cellular electron microscopy (EM) datasets remains a challenge. Supervised deep learning (DL) methods that rely on region-of-interest (ROI) annotations yield models that fail to generalize to unrelated datasets. Newer unsupervised DL algorithms require relevant pre-training images, however, pre-training on currently available EM datasets is computationally expensive and shows little value for unseen biological contexts, as these datasets are large and homogeneous. To address this issue, we present CEM500K, a nimble 25 GB dataset of 0.5 × 10

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopy, ElectronDeep Learningcell biologycomputational biologydeep learningelectron microscopyimage datasetneural networknonesegmentationsystems biologyvEM

Identifiers

PMID33830015
PMCPMC8032397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.