Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35595864›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Automatic worm detection to solve overlapping problems using a convolutional neural network.

Shinichiro Mori, Yasuhiko Tachibana, Michiyo Suzuki, Yoshinobu Harada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Towards generalization forComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Shinichiro MoriInstitute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Inage-ku, Chiba, 263-8555, Japan. mori.shinichiro@qst.go.jp.
Yasuhiko TachibanaInstitute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Inage-ku, Chiba, 263-8555, Japan.
Michiyo SuzukiTakasaki Advanced Radiation Research Institute, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Takasaki, Gunma, 370-1292, Japan.
Yoshinobu HaradaInstitute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Inage-ku, Chiba, 263-8555, Japan.

Funding

Enhancing and expanding the CGC Strain CollectionP40OD010440 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Aric L Daul, Ann E. Rougvie · 2012 to 2026
$7.5M
NIH HHS P40 OD010440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is a powerful experimental model to investigate vital functions of higher organisms. We recently established a novel method, named "pond assay for the sensory systems (PASS)", that dramatically improves both the evaluation accuracy of sensory response of worms and the efficiency of experiments. This method uses many worms in numbers that are impractical to count manually. Although several automated detection systems have been introduced, detection of overlapped worms remains difficult. To overcome this problem, we developed an automated worm detection system based on a deep neural network (DNN). Our DNN was based on a "YOLOv4″ one-stage detector with one-class classification (OCC) and multi-class classification (MCC). The OCC defined a single class for worms, while the MCC defined four classes for the number of overlapped worms. For the training data, a total of 2000 model sub-images were prepared by manually drawing square worm bounding boxes from 150 images. To make simulated images, a total of 10-80 model images for each class were randomly selected and randomly placed on a simulated microscope field. A total of 19,000 training datasets and 1000 validation datasets with a ground-truth bounding-box were prepared. We evaluated detection accuracy using 150 images, which were different from the training data. Evaluation metrics were detection error, precision, recall, and average precision (AP). Precision values were 0.91 for both OCC and MCC. However, the recall value for MCC (= 0.93) was higher than that for OCC (= 0.79). The number of detection errors for OCC increased with increasing the ground truth; however, that for MCC was independent of the ground truth. AP values were 0.78 and 0.90 for the OCC and the MCC, respectively. Our worm detection system with MCC provided better detection accuracy for large numbers of worms with overlapping positions than that with the OCC.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID35595864
PMCPMC9122895

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.