ArticleNeurophotonics2023
Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Addressing annotation and data scarcity when designing machine learning strategies for neurophotonics.Neurophotonics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significance: Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) can visualize cellular morphology and measure dry mass. Automated segmentation of QPI imagery is desirable for tracking neuron growth. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have provided state-of-the-art results for image segmentation. Improving the amount and robustness of training data is often crucial to improving CNN output on novel samples, but acquiring enough labeled data can be labor intensive. Data augmentation and simulation can be used to address this, but it is unclear whether low-complexity data can result in useful network generalization. Aim: We trained CNNs on abstract images of neurons and on augmented images of real neurons. We then benchmarked the resulting models against human labeling. Approach: We used a stochastic simulation of neuron growth to guide abstract QPI image and label generation. We then tested the segmentation performance of networks trained on augmented data and networks trained on simulated data against manual labeling established via consensus of three human labelers. Results: We show that training on augmented real data resulted in a model that achieved the best Dice coefficients in our group of CNNs. The largest percent difference in dry mass estimation with respect to the ground truth was driven by segmentation errors of cell debris and phase noise. The error in dry mass when considering the cell body alone was similar between the CNNs. Neurite pixels only accounted for Conclusions: Augmented data outperformed the simulated abstract data for this testing set. The quality of segmentation of neurites was the key difference in performance between the models. Notably, even humans performed poorly when segmenting neurites. Further work is needed to improve the segmentation quality of neurites.
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.