ArticlePloS one2021
Object detection for automatic cancer cell counting in zebrafish xenografts.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- CsDETC: detection and counting of small targetFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Zebrafish Cancer Avatars: A Translational Platform for Analyzing Tumor Heterogeneity and Predicting Patient Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- A deep learning approach for the detection and counting of colon cancer cells (HT-29 cells) bunches and impurities.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Automated detection of patterned single-cells within hydrogel using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell counting is a frequent task in medical research studies. However, it is often performed manually; thus, it is time-consuming and prone to human error. Even so, cell counting automation can be challenging to achieve, especially when dealing with crowded scenes and overlapping cells, assuming different shapes and sizes. In this paper, we introduce a deep learning-based cell detection and quantification methodology to automate the cell counting process in the zebrafish xenograft cancer model, an innovative technique for studying tumor biology and for personalizing medicine. First, we implemented a fine-tuned architecture based on the Faster R-CNN using the Inception ResNet V2 feature extractor. Second, we performed several adjustments to optimize the process, paying attention to constraints such as the presence of overlapped cells, the high number of objects to detect, the heterogeneity of the cells' size and shape, and the small size of the data set. This method resulted in a median error of approximately 1% of the total number of cell units. These results demonstrate the potential of our novel approach for quantifying cells in poorly labeled images. Compared to traditional Faster R-CNN, our method improved the average precision from 71% to 85% on the studied data set.
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.