ArticleMolecular vision2023
Addressing bias in manual segmentation of spheroid sprouting assays with U-Net.
Article in Molecular vision, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Angiogenesis research faces the issue of false-positive findings due to the manual analysis pipelines involved in many assays. For example, the spheroid sprouting assay, one of the most prominent in vitro angiogenesis models, is commonly based on manual segmentation of sprouts. In this study, we propose a method for mitigating subconscious or fraudulent bias caused by manual segmentation. This approach involves training a U-Net model on manual segmentations and using the readout of this U-Net model instead of the potentially biased original segmentations. Our hypothesis is that U-Net will mitigate any bias in the manual segmentations because this will impose only random noise during model training. We assessed this idea using a simulation study. Methods: The training data comprised 1531 phase contrast images and manual segmentations from various spheroid sprouting assays. We randomly divided the images 1:1 into two groups: a fictitious intervention group and a control group. Bias was simulated exclusively in the intervention group. We simulated two adversarial scenarios: 1) removal of a single randomly selected sprout and 2) systematic shortening of all sprouts. For both scenarios, we compared the original segmentation, adversarial segmentation, and respective U-Net readouts. In the second step, we assessed the sensitivity of this approach to detect a true positive effect. We sampled multiple treatment and control groups with decreasing treatment effects based on unbiased ground truth segmentation. Results: This approach was able to mitigate bias in both adversarial scenarios. However, in both scenarios, U-Net detected the real treatment effects based on a comparison to the ground truth. Conclusions: This method may prove useful for verifying positive findings in angiogenesis experiments with a manual analysis pipeline when full investigator masking has been neglected or is not feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38222450PMC10784213W4390889399What 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.