ArticleMicroscopy research and technique2025
Exploring the Impact of Variability in Cell Segmentation and Tracking Approaches.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image Tracing of Inflammatory Intestinal Organoids via Computational Clearing.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advancing in vitro cell migration studies: a review of open-source analytical platforms for cancer and wound healing research.Cell adhesion & migration · 2025Review
- Robust consensus nuclear and cell segmentation.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Extracellular matrices of stromal cell subtypes regulate phenotype and contribute to the stromal microenvironment in vivo.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.