ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Brain organoid data synthesis and evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organoid Intelligent Morphomics: Decoding the organoid morphome through artificial intelligence from phenotypic quantification to mechanistic insight.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
- The role of impaired mitochondrial function in neurological manifestations of mitochondrial diseases.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Review
- [A review on depth perception techniques in organoid images].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2024Review
- Limitations of human brain organoids to study neurodegenerative diseases: a manual to survive.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Review
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
Introduction: Datasets containing only few images are common in the biomedical field. This poses a global challenge for the development of robust deep-learning analysis tools, which require a large number of images. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are an increasingly used solution to expand small datasets, specifically in the biomedical domain. However, the validation of synthetic images by metrics is still controversial and psychovisual evaluations are time consuming. Methods: We augment a small brain organoid bright-field database of 40 images using several GAN optimizations. We compare these synthetic images to the original dataset using similitude metrcis and we perform an psychovisual evaluation of the 240 images generated. Eight biological experts labeled the full dataset (280 images) as syntetic or natural using a custom-built software. We calculate the error rate per loss optimization as well as the hesitation time. We then compare these results to those provided by the similarity metrics. We test the psychovalidated images in a training step of a segmentation task. Results and discussion: Generated images are considered as natural as the original dataset, with no increase of the hesitation time by experts. Experts are particularly misled by perceptual and Wasserstein loss optimization. These optimizations render the most qualitative and similar images according to metrics to the original dataset. We do not observe a strong correlation but links between some metrics and psychovisual decision according to the kind of generation. Particular Blur metric combinations could maybe replace the psychovisual evaluation. Segmentation task which use the most psychovalidated images are the most accurate.
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.