Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35063094›Full record

ReviewMolecular cell2022

The new era of quantitative cell imaging-challenges and opportunities.

Neda Bagheri, Anne E Carpenter, Emma Lundberg, Anne L Plant, Rick Horwitz

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular cell, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Neda BagheriAllen Institute for Cell Science, Seattle, WA 98109, USA; Biology and Chemical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: nbagheri@uw.edu.
Anne E CarpenterImaging Platform, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Electronic address: anne@broadinstitute.org.
Emma LundbergScience for Life Laboratory, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: emma.lundberg@scilifelab.se.
Anne L PlantNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA. Electronic address: anne.plant@nist.gov.
Rick HorwitzAllen Institute for Cell Science, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: rickh@alleninstitute.org.

Funding

Extracting rich information from biological imagesR35GM122547 · NIGMS · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI Anne E. Carpenter · 2017 to 2026
$6.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative optical microscopy-an emerging, transformative approach to single-cell biology-has seen dramatic methodological advancements over the past few years. However, its impact has been hampered by challenges in the areas of data generation, management, and analysis. Here we outline these technical and cultural challenges and provide our perspective on the trajectory of this field, ushering in a new era of quantitative, data-driven microscopy. We also contrast it to the three decades of enormous advances in the field of genomics that have significantly enhanced the reproducibility and wider adoption of a plethora of genomic approaches.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiffusion of InnovationGenomicsHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMicroscopyOptical ImagingReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSingle-Cell Analysis

Identifiers

PMID35063094
PMCPMC10339817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.