ArticleBioinformatics and biology insights2024
Comparing Deep Learning Performance for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Cell Segmentation in Brightfield Microscopy Images.
Article in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This article focuses on the detection of cells in low-contrast brightfield microscopy images; in our case, it is chronic lymphocytic leukaemia cells. The automatic detection of cells from brightfield time-lapse microscopic images brings new opportunities in cell morphology and migration studies; to achieve the desired results, it is advisable to use state-of-the-art image segmentation methods that not only detect the cell but also detect its boundaries with the highest possible accuracy, thus defining its shape and dimensions. Methods: We compared eight state-of-the-art neural network architectures with different backbone encoders for image data segmentation, namely U-net, U-net++, the Pyramid Attention Network, the Multi-Attention Network, LinkNet, the Feature Pyramid Network, DeepLabV3, and DeepLabV3+. The training process involved training each of these networks for 1000 epochs using the PyTorch and PyTorch Lightning libraries. For instance segmentation, the watershed algorithm and three-class image semantic segmentation were used. We also used StarDist, a deep learning-based tool for object detection with star-convex shapes. Results: The optimal combination for semantic segmentation was the U-net++ architecture with a ResNeSt-269 background with a data set intersection over a union score of 0.8902. For the cell characteristics examined (area, circularity, solidity, perimeter, radius, and shape index), the difference in mean value using different chronic lymphocytic leukaemia cell segmentation approaches appeared to be statistically significant (Mann-Whitney Conclusion: We found that overall, the algorithms demonstrate equal agreement with ground truth, but with the comparison, it can be seen that the different approaches prefer different morphological features of the cells. Consequently, choosing the most suitable method for instance-based cell segmentation depends on the particular application, namely, the specific cellular traits being investigated.
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.