ArticlePloS one2022
Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell-MICS: Detecting Immune Cells With Label-Free Two-Photon Autofluorescence and Deep Learning.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
- Finding differentially expressed genes between cell fates predicted by image-based deep learning.Biophysics and physicobiology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developments in high-throughput microscopy have made it possible to collect huge amounts of cell image data that are difficult to analyse manually. Machine learning (e.g., deep learning) is often employed to automate the extraction of information from these data, such as cell counting, cell type classification and image segmentation. However, the effects of different imaging methods on the accuracy of image processing have not been examined systematically. We studied the effects of different imaging methods on the performance of machine learning-based cell type classifiers. We observed lymphoid-primed multipotential progenitor (LMPP) and pro-B cells using three imaging methods: differential interference contrast (DIC), phase contrast (Ph) and bright-field (BF). We examined the classification performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with each of them and their combinations. CNNs achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ~0.9, which was significantly better than when the classifier used only cell size or cell contour shape as input. However, no significant differences were found between imaging methods and focal positions.
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.