Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39154193›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

A systematic evaluation of computational methods for cell segmentation.

Yuxing Wang, Junhan Zhao, Hongye Xu, Cheng Han, Zhiqiang Tao, Dawei Zhou, Tong Geng, Dongfang Liu, Zhicheng Ji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Spatial omics for profiling the dynamic tumor microenvironment.Clinical & translational immunology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Vispro improves imaging analysis for Visium spatial transcriptomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Yuxing WangDepartment of Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.
Junhan ZhaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Hongye XuDepartment of Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.
Cheng HanDepartment of Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.
Zhiqiang TaoDepartment of Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.
Dawei ZhouDepartment of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, United States.
Tong GengDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
Dongfang LiuDepartment of Computer Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, United States.
Zhicheng JiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9457-4704

Funding

The Duke Senescent Cell Evaluations in Normal Tissues (SCENT) Mapping CenterU54AG075936 · NIA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NIXON, ANDREW B. · 2021 to 2025
$12.7M
Computational methods for in situ spatial transcriptomicsR35GM154865 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Zhicheng Ji · 2024 to 2026
$1.2M
NIA NIH HHS U54 AG075936NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM154865NIH HHS U54AG075936
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell segmentation is a fundamental task in analyzing biomedical images. Many computational methods have been developed for cell segmentation and instance segmentation, but their performances are not well understood in various scenarios. We systematically evaluated the performance of 18 segmentation methods to perform cell nuclei and whole cell segmentation using light microscopy and fluorescence staining images. We found that general-purpose methods incorporating the attention mechanism exhibit the best overall performance. We identified various factors influencing segmentation performances, including image channels, choice of training data, and cell morphology, and evaluated the generalizability of methods across image modalities. We also provide guidelines for choosing the optimal segmentation methods in various real application scenarios. We developed Seggal, an online resource for downloading segmentation models already pre-trained with various tissue and cell types, substantially reducing the time and effort for training cell segmentation models.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsCell NucleusComputational BiologyHumansbenchmarkcell segmentationdeep learningimaging

Identifiers

PMID39154193
PMCPMC11330341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.