ArticlePharmaceutical research2022
Testing Precision Limits of Neural Network-Based Quality Control Metrics in High-Throughput Digital Microscopy.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2022. 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.
- Representative training data sets are critical for accurate machine-learning classification of microscopy images of particles formed by lipase-catalyzed polysorbate hydrolysis.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Article
- Stain-Free Approach to Determine and Monitor Cell Heath Using Supervised and Unsupervised Image-Based Deep Learning.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Analysis Provides Insight into Mechanisms of Protein Particle Formation Inside Containers During Mechanical Agitation.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2022Article
- Combining Machine Learning and Backgrounded Membrane Imaging: A Case Study in Comparing and Classifying Different Types of Biopharmaceutically Relevant Particles.Journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDigital microscopy is used to monitor particulates such as protein aggregates within biopharmaceutical products. The images that result encode a wealth of information that is underutilized in pharmaceutical process monitoring. For example, images of particles in protein drug products typically are analyzed only to obtain particle counts and size distributions, even though the images also reflect particle characteristics such as shape and refractive index. Multiple groups have demonstrated that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can extract information from images of protein aggregates allowing assignment of the likely stress at the "root-cause" of aggregation. A practical limitation of previous CNN-based approaches is that the potential aggregation-inducing stresses must be known a priori, disallowing identification of particles produced by unknown stresses.
methodsWe demonstrate an expanded CNN analysis of flow imaging microscopy (FIM) images incorporating judiciously chosen particle standards within a recently proposed "fingerprinting algorithm" (Biotechnol. & Bioeng. (2020) 117:3322) that allows detection of particles formed by unknown root-causes. We focus on ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) microparticles as standard surrogates for protein aggregates. We quantify the sensitivity of the new algorithm to experimental parameters such as microscope focus and solution refractive index changes, and explore how FIM sample noise affects statistical testing procedures. RESULTS &
conclusionsApplied to real-world microscopy images of protein aggregates, the algorithm reproducibly detects complex, distinguishing "textural features" of particles that are not easily described by standard morphological measurements. This offers promise for quality control applications and for detecting shifts in protein aggregate populations due to stresses resulting from unknown process upsets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35080706What 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.