Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37828466›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023

Unbiased image segmentation assessment toolkit for quantitative differentiation of state-of-the-art algorithms and pipelines.

Vishakha Goyal, Nick J Schaub, Ty C Voss, Nathan A Hotaling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Vishakha GoyalInformation Research Technology Branch (ITRB), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9800 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Nick J SchaubInformation Research Technology Branch (ITRB), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9800 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Ty C VossInformation Research Technology Branch (ITRB), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9800 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Nathan A HotalingInformation Research Technology Branch (ITRB), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9800 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. Nathan.Hotaling@nih.gov.

Funding

NCATS NIH HHS NCATS ITRB Intramural Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImage segmentation pipelines are commonly used in microscopy to identify cellular compartments like nucleus and cytoplasm, but there are few standards for comparing segmentation accuracy across pipelines. The process of selecting a segmentation assessment pipeline can seem daunting to researchers due to the number and variety of metrics available for evaluating segmentation quality.

resultsHere we present automated pipelines to obtain a comprehensive set of 69 metrics to evaluate segmented data and propose a selection methodology for models based on quantitative analysis, dimension reduction or unsupervised classification techniques and informed selection criteria.

conclusionWe show that the metrics used here can often be reduced to a small number of metrics that give a more complete understanding of segmentation accuracy, with different groups of metrics providing sensitivity to different types of segmentation error. These tools are delivered as easy to use python libraries, command line tools, Common Workflow Language Tools, and as Web Image Processing Pipeline interactive plugins to ensure a wide range of users can access and use them. We also present how our evaluation methods can be used to observe the changes in segmentations across modern machine learning/deep learning workflows and use cases.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedCytoplasmMachine LearningMicroscopyCell segmentationEvaluation metricsMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37828466
PMCPMC10568754

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.