ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
Recognition and reconstruction of cell differentiation patterns with deep learning.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence-Powered Histopathology in Stem Cell Research: Bridging Morphology, Function, and Omics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Acoustic Bioprinting: A Glimpse Into an Emerging Field.Small methods · 2026Review
- AI-powered simulation-based inference of a genuinely spatial-stochastic gene regulation model of early mouse embryogenesis.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- The salt-and-pepper pattern in mouse blastocysts is compatible with signaling beyond the nearest neighbors.iScience · 2023Article
- Adjusting the range of cell-cell communication enables fine-tuning of cell fate patterns from checkerboard to engulfing.Journal of mathematical biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cell lineage decisions occur in three-dimensional spatial patterns that are difficult to identify by eye. There is an ongoing effort to replicate such patterns using mathematical modeling. One approach uses long ranging cell-cell communication to replicate common spatial arrangements like checkerboard and engulfing patterns. In this model, the cell-cell communication has been implemented as a signal that disperses throughout the tissue. On the other hand, machine learning models have been developed for pattern recognition and pattern reconstruction tasks. We combined synthetic data generated by the mathematical model with spatial summary statistics and deep learning algorithms to recognize and reconstruct cell fate patterns in organoids of mouse embryonic stem cells. Application of Moran's index and pair correlation functions for in vitro and synthetic data from the model showed local clustering and radial segregation. To assess the patterns as a whole, a graph neural network was developed and trained on synthetic data from the model. Application to in vitro data predicted a low signal dispersion value. To test this result, we implemented a multilayer perceptron for the prediction of a given cell fate based on the fates of the neighboring cells. The results show a 70% accuracy of cell fate imputation based on the nine nearest neighbors of a cell. Overall, our approach combines deep learning with mathematical modeling to link cell fate patterns with potential underlying mechanisms.
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.