Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548933›Full record

ArticleMicroscopy research and technique2025

Exploring the Impact of Variability in Cell Segmentation and Tracking Approaches.

Laura Wiggins, Peter J O'Toole, William J Brackenbury, Julie Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microscopy research and technique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Laura WigginsYork Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4615-2379
Peter J O'TooleYork Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
William J BrackenburyYork Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, York, UK.
Julie WilsonDepartment of Mathematics, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council B/S507416/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Segmentation and tracking are essential preliminary steps in the analysis of almost all live cell imaging applications. Although the number of open-source software systems that facilitate automated segmentation and tracking continue to evolve, many researchers continue to opt for manual alternatives for samples that are not easily auto-segmented, tracing cell boundaries by hand and reidentifying cells on consecutive frames by eye. Such methods are subject to inter-user variability, introducing idiosyncrasies into the results of downstream analysis that are a result of subjectivity and individual expertise. The methods are also susceptible to intra-user variability, meaning findings are challenging to reproduce. In this pilot study, we demonstrate and quantify the degree of intra- and inter-user variability in manual cell segmentation and tracking by comparing the phenotypic metrics extracted from cells segmented and tracked by different members of our research team. Furthermore, we compare the segmentation results for a ptychographic cell image obtained using different automated software and demonstrate the high dependence of performance on the imaging modality they were developed to handle. Our results show that choice of segmentation and tracking methods should be considered carefully in order to enhance the quality and reproducibility of results.

Indexed as

Cell TrackingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareautomationcell phenotypingimage analysismanualsegmentationtracking

Identifiers

PMID39548933
PMCPMC11842944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.