ArticleBMC bioinformatics2023
Unbiased image segmentation assessment toolkit for quantitative differentiation of state-of-the-art algorithms and pipelines.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrack: pushing the limits of cell tracking across biological scales.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Fast analysis of Spatial Transcriptomics (FaST): an ultra lightweight and fast pipeline for the analysis of high resolution spatial transcriptomics.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
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
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
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.