ArticleNature methods2024
Segmentation metric misinterpretations in bioimage analysis.
Article in Nature methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maximum Matching Accuracy: An Instance Segmentation Evaluation Metric Utilizing Globally Optimal Matching.ArXiv · 2026Article
- Vision of Life's Code: Molecular Probe Nanoarchitectonics for Deep RNA/DNA Illumination.ACS nano · 2026Review
- Review
- Lightweight Dual-Attention Network for Concrete Crack Segmentation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- A versatile information retrieval framework for evaluating profile strength and similarity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A versatile information retrieval framework for evaluating profile strength and similarity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Segment Anything for Microscopy.Nature methods · 2025Article
- CelloType: a unified model for segmentation and classification of tissue images.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Bridging the Gap From Proteomics Technology to Clinical Application: Highlights From the 68th Benzon Foundation Symposium.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Nuclear instance segmentation and tracking for preimplantation mouse embryos.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- CelloType: A Unified Model for Segmentation and Classification of Tissue Images.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A systematic evaluation of computational methods for cell segmentation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- aiSEGcell: User-friendly deep learning-based segmentation of nuclei in transmitted light images.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A systematic evaluation of computational methods for cell segmentation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- A deep learning-based toolkit for 3D nuclei segmentation and quantitative analysis in cellular and tissue context.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- Three million images and morphological profiles of cells treated with matched chemical and genetic perturbations.Nature methods · 2024Article
- The multimodality cell segmentation challenge: toward universal solutions.Nature methods · 2024Article
- Where imaging and metrics meet.Nature methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of image segmentation algorithms is crucial in the field of bioimage analysis. The most common assessment scores, however, are often misinterpreted and multiple definitions coexist with the same name. Here we present the ambiguities of evaluation metrics for segmentation algorithms and show how these misinterpretations can alter leaderboards of influential competitions. We also propose guidelines for how the currently existing problems could be tackled.
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.