Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39690701›Full record

ArticleMicroscopy research and technique2025

Enhancing Research Through Image Analysis Workshops: Experiences and Best Practices.

Stefania Marcotti, Martin L Jones, Thomas J A Slater, David J Barry

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Stefania MarcottiRandall Centre for Cell and Molecular Biophysics, King's College London, London, UK.
Martin L JonesElectron Microscopy Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.
Thomas J A SlaterCardiff Catalysis Institute, School of Chemistry, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
David J BarryAdvanced Light Microscopy Science Technology Platform, The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2763-5244

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/V006169/1Cancer Research UK CC1069Company of Biologists EA960UK Medical Research Council CC1069Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust CC1069
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern microscopy systems allow researchers to generate large volumes of image data with relative ease. However, the challenge of analyzing these data effectively is often hindered by a lack of computational skills. This bottleneck negatively impacts both research reproducibility and efficiency, as researchers frequently rely on manual or semi-automated analysis methods. Interactive image analysis workshops offer a valuable solution, equipping researchers with the skills and tools needed to automate image processing tasks. In this paper, we share our experiences and best practices from conducting such workshops, which emphasize the use of open-source software like ImageJ, FIJI, and Python-based tools such as JupyterLab and napari. We discuss key considerations for workshop design, logistics, and outcomes, while highlighting common pitfalls to avoid. Using two recent workshops as case studies, we also present strategies for optimizing participant engagement and learning. Our insights offer practical guidance for planning and conducting image analysis workshops and serve as a starting point for researchers looking to establish similar training initiatives and enrich their local imaging communities.

Indexed as

image analysisopen‐source softwaretrainingworkshops

Identifiers

PMID39690701
PMCPMC11947513

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.