Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37566229›Full record

ArticleCalcified tissue international2023

A Machine Learning-Based Image Segmentation Method to Quantify In Vitro Osteoclast Culture Endpoints.

Bethan K Davies, Andrew P Hibbert, Scott J Roberts, Helen C Roberts, Jennifer C Tickner, Gill Holdsworth, Timothy R Arnett, Isabel R Orriss

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Calcified tissue international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Isolation and Generation of Osteoclasts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  6. NOISe: Nuclei-Aware Osteoclast Instance Segmentation for Mouse-to-Human Domain Transfer.Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Workshops · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Bethan K DaviesDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK.
Andrew P HibbertDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK.
Scott J RobertsDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK.
Helen C RobertsDepartment of Natural Sciences, Middlesex University, London, UK.
Jennifer C TicknerSchool of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Gill HoldsworthUCB Pharma, Slough, UK.
Timothy R ArnettDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK.
Isabel R OrrissDepartment of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London, NW1 0TU, UK. iorriss@rvc.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7847-050X
Royal Veterinary College · GBMiddlesex University · GBThe University of Western Australia · AUUCB Pharma (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M009513/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantification of in vitro osteoclast cultures (e.g. cell number) often relies on manual counting methods. These approaches are labour intensive, time consuming and result in substantial inter- and intra-user variability. This study aimed to develop and validate an automated workflow to robustly quantify in vitro osteoclast cultures. Using ilastik, a machine learning-based image analysis software, images of tartrate resistant acid phosphatase-stained mouse osteoclasts cultured on dentine discs were used to train the ilastik-based algorithm. Assessment of algorithm training showed that osteoclast numbers strongly correlated between manual- and automatically quantified values (r = 0.87). Osteoclasts were consistently faithfully segmented by the model when visually compared to the original reflective light images. The ability of this method to detect changes in osteoclast number in response to different treatments was validated using zoledronate, ticagrelor, and co-culture with MCF7 breast cancer cells. Manual and automated counting methods detected a 70% reduction (p < 0.05) in osteoclast number, when cultured with 10 nM zoledronate and a dose-dependent decrease with 1-10 μM ticagrelor (p < 0.05). Co-culture with MCF7 cells increased osteoclast number by ≥ 50% irrespective of quantification method. Overall, an automated image segmentation and analysis workflow, which consistently and sensitively identified in vitro osteoclasts, was developed. Advantages of this workflow are (1) significantly reduction in user variability of endpoint measurements (93%) and analysis time (80%); (2) detection of osteoclasts cultured on different substrates from different species; and (3) easy to use and freely available to use along with tutorial resources.

Indexed as

Bone ResorptionOsteoclastsAcid PhosphataseAnimalsCell DifferentiationCells, CulturedCoculture TechniquesMiceTartrate-Resistant Acid PhosphataseTicagrelorZoledronic AcidAcid PhosphataseTartrate-Resistant Acid PhosphataseTicagrelorZoledronic AcidFormationIlastikMachine learningOsteoclastResorption

Identifiers

PMID37566229
PMCPMC10516805
OpenAlexW4385751837

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.