Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35085287›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance.

Taisaku Ogawa, Koji Ochiai, Tomoharu Iwata, Tomokatsu Ikawa, Taku Tsuzuki, Katsuyuki Shiroguchi, Koichi Takahashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Taisaku OgawaLaboratory for Prediction of Cell Systems Dynamics, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research (BDR), Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Koji OchiaiLaboratory for Biologically Inspired Computing, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research (BDR), Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Tomoharu IwataUeda Research Laboratory, NTT Communication Science Laboratories, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomokatsu IkawaDivision of Immunology and Allergy, Research Institute for Biomedical Sciences, Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Chiba, Japan.
Taku TsuzukiLaboratory for Computational Molecular Design, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research (BDR), Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Katsuyuki ShiroguchiLaboratory for Prediction of Cell Systems Dynamics, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research (BDR), Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Koichi TakahashiLaboratory for Biologically Inspired Computing, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research (BDR), Suita, Osaka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4235-9914

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

B-LymphocytesCells, CulturedHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLymphocytesMachine LearningMicroscopyROC CurveStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID35085287
PMCPMC8794178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.