Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344832›Full record

ArticleNature methods2022

Cellpose 2.0: how to train your own model.

Marius Pachitariu, Carsen Stringer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 760 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
760citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

760 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

700 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marius PachitariuHoward Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Janelia Research Campus, Ashburn, VA, USA. pachitarium@janelia.hhmi.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7106-814X
Carsen StringerHoward Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Janelia Research Campus, Ashburn, VA, USA. stringerc@janelia.hhmi.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9229-4100

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pretrained neural network models for biological segmentation can provide good out-of-the-box results for many image types. However, such models do not allow users to adapt the segmentation style to their specific needs and can perform suboptimally for test images that are very different from the training images. Here we introduce Cellpose 2.0, a new package that includes an ensemble of diverse pretrained models as well as a human-in-the-loop pipeline for rapid prototyping of new custom models. We show that models pretrained on the Cellpose dataset can be fine-tuned with only 500-1,000 user-annotated regions of interest (ROI) to perform nearly as well as models trained on entire datasets with up to 200,000 ROI. A human-in-the-loop approach further reduced the required user annotation to 100-200 ROI, while maintaining high-quality segmentations. We provide software tools such as an annotation graphical user interface, a model zoo and a human-in-the-loop pipeline to facilitate the adoption of Cellpose 2.0.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerHumansSoftware

Identifiers

PMID36344832
PMCPMC9718665

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.