ArticleScientific reports2022
Generalising from conventional pipelines using deep learning in high-throughput screening workflows.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive update on the application of high-throughput fluorescence imaging for novel drug discovery.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2025Review
- Systematic Transmission Electron Microscopy-Based Identification and 3D Reconstruction of Cellular Degradation Machinery.Advanced biology · 2023Article
- Machine learning models for diagnosis and prognosis of Parkinson's disease using brain imaging: general overview, main challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of complex diseases relies on large amounts of data to build models toward precision medicine. Such data acquisition is feasible in the context of high-throughput screening, in which the quality of the results relies on the accuracy of the image analysis. Although state-of-the-art solutions for image segmentation employ deep learning approaches, the high cost of manually generating ground truth labels for model training hampers the day-to-day application in experimental laboratories. Alternatively, traditional computer vision-based solutions do not need expensive labels for their implementation. Our work combines both approaches by training a deep learning network using weak training labels automatically generated with conventional computer vision methods. Our network surpasses the conventional segmentation quality by generalising beyond noisy labels, providing a 25% increase of mean intersection over union, and simultaneously reducing the development and inference times. Our solution was embedded into an easy-to-use graphical user interface that allows researchers to assess the predictions and correct potential inaccuracies with minimal human input. To demonstrate the feasibility of training a deep learning solution on a large dataset of noisy labels automatically generated by a conventional pipeline, we compared our solution against the common approach of training a model from a small manually curated dataset by several experts. Our work suggests that humans perform better in context interpretation, such as error assessment, while computers outperform in pixel-by-pixel fine segmentation. Such pipelines are illustrated with a case study on image segmentation for autophagy events. This work aims for better translation of new technologies to real-world settings in microscopy-image analysis.
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.