ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Deep learning segmentation of endothelial cell images using an active learning paradigm with guided label corrections.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automatic Determination of Endothelial Cell Density From Donor Cornea Endothelial Cell Images.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To create Guided Correction Software for informed manual editing of automatically generated corneal endothelial cell (EC) segmentations and apply it to an active learning paradigm to analyze a diverse set of post-keratoplasty EC images. Approach: An original U-Net model trained on 130 manually labeled post-Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (EK) images was applied to 841 post-Descemet membrane EK images generating "uncorrected" cell border segmentations. Segmentations were then manually edited using the Guided Correction Software to create corrected labels. This dataset was split into 741 training and 100 testing EC images. U-Net and DeepLabV3+ were trained on the EC images and the corresponding uncorrected and corrected labels. Model performance was evaluated in a cell-by-cell analysis. Evaluation metrics included the number of over-segmentations, under-segmentations, correctly identified new cells, and endothelial cell density (ECD). Results: Utilizing corrected segmentations for training U-Net and DeepLabV3+ improved their performance. The average number of over- and under-segmentations per image was reduced from 23 to 11 with the corrected training set. Predicted ECD values generated by networks trained on the corrected labels were not significantly different than the ground truth counterparts ( Conclusions: Guided Correction Software can efficiently label new training data for improved deep learning performance and generalization between EC datasets.
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.