ArticleSLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D2022
Deep Learning Image Analysis of High-Throughput Toxicology Assay Images.
Article in SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative investigation of the potential of glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations to cause oxidative stress and DNA damage in human skin and liver cell systems.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- AI-based methods for the assessment of DNA damage and repair mechanisms.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Green toxicology only becomes beautiful through AI.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- Unraveling Human Hepatocellular Responses to PFAS and Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFFs) for Molecular Hazard Prioritization and In Vivo Translation.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Article
- The evolving role of investigative toxicology in the pharmaceutical industry.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2023Review
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
Abstract
High-throughput chemical screening approaches often employ microscopy to capture photomicrographs from multi-well cell culture plates, generating thousands of images that require time-consuming human analysis. To automate this subjective and time-consuming manual process, we have developed a method that uses deep learning to automatically classify digital assay images. We have trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) to perform binary and multi-class classification. The binary classifier binned assay images into healthy (comparable to untreated controls) and altered (not comparable to untreated-control) classes with >98% accuracy; the multi-class classifier assigned "Healthy," "Intermediate" and "Altered" labels to assay images with >95% accuracy. Our dataset comprised high-resolution assay images from primary human hepatocytes and undifferentiated (proliferating) and differentiated 2D cultures of HepaRG cells. In this study we have focused on testing and fine-tuning various CNN architectures, including ResNet 34, 50 and 101. To visualize regions in the images that the CNN model used for classification, we employed Class Activation Maps (CAM). This allowed us to better understand the inner workings of the neural network and led to additional optimizations of the algorithm. The results indicate a strong correspondence between dosage and classifier-predicted scores, suggesting that these scores might be useful in further characterizing benchmark dose. Together, these results clearly demonstrate that deep-learning based automated image classification of cell morphology changes upon chemical-induced stress can yield highly accurate and reproducible assessments of cytotoxicity across a variety of cell types.
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.