ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Validation and tuning of in situ transcriptomics image processing workflows with crowdsourced annotations.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Recent advancements in in situ methods, such as multiplexed in situ RNA hybridization and in situ RNA sequencing, have deepened our understanding of the way biological processes are spatially organized in tissues. Automated image processing and spot-calling algorithms for analyzing in situ transcriptomics images have many parameters which need to be tuned for optimal detection. Having ground truth datasets (images where there is very high confidence on the accuracy of the detected spots) is essential for evaluating these algorithms and tuning their parameters. We present a first-in-kind open-source toolkit and framework for in situ transcriptomics image analysis that incorporates crowdsourced annotations, alongside expert annotations, as a source of ground truth for the analysis of in situ transcriptomics images. The kit includes tools for preparing images for crowdsourcing annotation to optimize crowdsourced workers' ability to annotate these images reliably, performing quality control (QC) on worker annotations, extracting candidate parameters for spot-calling algorithms from sample images, tuning parameters for spot-calling algorithms, and evaluating spot-calling algorithms and worker performance. These tools are wrapped in a modular pipeline with a flexible structure that allows users to take advantage of crowdsourced annotations from any source of their choice. We tested the pipeline using real and synthetic in situ transcriptomics images and annotations from the Amazon Mechanical Turk system obtained via Quanti.us. Using real images from in situ experiments and simulated images produced by one of the tools in the kit, we studied worker sensitivity to spot characteristics and established rules for annotation QC. We explored and demonstrated the use of ground truth generated in this way for validating spot-calling algorithms and tuning their parameters, and confirmed that consensus crowdsourced annotations are a viable substitute for expert-generated ground truth for these purposes.
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.