ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
A Novel Semi-automated Proofreading and Mesh Error Detection Pipeline for Neuron Extension.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The immense scale and complexity of neuronal electron microscopy (EM) datasets pose significant challenges in data processing, validation, and interpretation, necessitating the development of efficient, automated, and scalable error-detection methodologies. This paper proposes a novel approach that employs mesh processing techniques to identify potential error locations near neuronal tips. Error detection at tips is a particularly important challenge since these errors usually indicate that many synapses are falsely split from their parent neuron, injuring the integrity of the connectomic reconstruction. Additionally, we draw implications and results from an implementation of this error detection in a semi-automated proofreading pipeline. Manual proofreading is a laborious, costly, and currently necessary method for identifying the errors in the machine learning based segmentation of neural tissue. This approach streamlines the process of proofreading by systematically highlighting areas likely to contain inaccuracies and guiding proofreaders towards potential continuations, accelerating the rate at which errors are corrected.
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.