Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34350013›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Principled network extraction from images.

Diego Baptista, Caterina De Bacco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Principled network extraction from images.Royal Society open science · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Diego BaptistaMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Cyber Valley, Tuebingen 72076, Germany.
Caterina De BaccoMax Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Cyber Valley, Tuebingen 72076, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-0211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Images of natural systems may represent patterns of network-like structure, which could reveal important information about the topological properties of the underlying subject. However, the image itself does not automatically provide a formal definition of a network in terms of sets of nodes and edges. Instead, this information should be suitably extracted from the raw image data. Motivated by this, we present a principled model to extract network topologies from images that is scalable and efficient. We map this goal into solving a routing optimization problem where the solution is a network that minimizes an energy function which can be interpreted in terms of an operational and infrastructural cost. Our method relies on recent results from optimal transport theory and is a principled alternative to standard image-processing techniques that are based on heuristics. We test our model on real images of the retinal vascular system, slime mould and river networks and compare with routines combining image-processing techniques. Results are tested in terms of a similarity measure related to the amount of information preserved in the extraction. We find that our model finds networks from retina vascular network images that are more similar to hand-labelled ones, while also giving high performance in extracting networks from images of rivers and slime mould for which there is no ground truth available. While there is no unique method that fits all the images the best, our approach performs consistently across datasets, its algorithmic implementation is efficient and can be fully automatized to be run on several datasets with little supervision.

Indexed as

networksoptimal transportrouting optimization

Identifiers

PMID34350013
PMCPMC8316801

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.