ArticleScientific reports2022
ArtSeg-Artifact segmentation and removal in brightfield cell microscopy images without manual pixel-level annotations.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spotlight on challenges and novel methods in highly multiplexed tissue imaging-based spatial proteomics.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Cellular Morphometric Analysis (CellMorph)-a comprehensive imaging-based tool for quantifying cellular phenotype heterogeneity and dynamics across biological processes.The FEBS journal · 2026Article
- Artifact detection in fluorescence microscopy using convolutional autoencoder.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Transfer Learning-Based Approach for Thickness Estimation on Optical Coherence Tomography of Varicose Veins.Micromachines · 2024Article
- High-throughput image analysis with deep learning captures heterogeneity and spatial relationships after kidney injury.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Brain organoid data synthesis and evaluation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brightfield cell microscopy is a foundational tool in life sciences. The acquired images are prone to contain visual artifacts that hinder downstream analysis, and automatically removing them is therefore of great practical interest. Deep convolutional neural networks are state-of-the-art for image segmentation, but require pixel-level annotations, which are time-consuming to produce. Here, we propose ScoreCAM-U-Net, a pipeline to segment artifactual regions in brightfield images with limited user input. The model is trained using only image-level labels, so the process is faster by orders of magnitude compared to pixel-level annotation, but without substantially sacrificing the segmentation performance. We confirm that artifacts indeed exist with different shapes and sizes in three different brightfield microscopy image datasets, and distort downstream analyses such as nuclei segmentation, morphometry and fluorescence intensity quantification. We then demonstrate that our automated artifact removal ameliorates this problem. Such rapid cleaning of acquired images using the power of deep learning models is likely to become a standard step for all large scale microscopy experiments.
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.