ArticleJournal of microscopy2025
Automated Euler number of the alveolar capillary network based on deep learning segmentation with verification by stereological methods.
Article in Journal of microscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Location-specific pathology analysis of monopodial airways in a rabbit model of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a proof of principle study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Automated Euler number of the alveolar capillary network based on deep learning segmentation with verification by stereological methods.Journal of microscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diseases like bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) affect the development of the pulmonary vasculature, including the alveolar capillary network (ACN). Since pulmonary development is highly dependent on angiogenesis and microvascular maturation, ACN investigations are essential. Therefore, efficient methods are needed for quantitative comparative studies. Here, the suitability of deep learning (DL) for processing serial block-face scanning electron microscopic (SBF-SEM) data by generating ACN segmentations, 3D reconstructions and performing automated quantitative analyses based on them, was tested. Since previous studies revealed inefficient ACN segmentation as the limiting factor in the overall workflow, a 2D DL-based approach was used with existing data, aiming at the reduction of necessary manual interaction. Automated quantitative analyses based on completed segmentations were performed subsequently. The results were compared to stereological estimations, assessing segmentation quality and result reliability. It was shown that the DL-based approach was suitable for generating segmentations on SBF-SEM data. This approach generated more complete initial ACN segmentations than an established method, despite the limited amount of available training data and the use of a 2D rather than a 3D approach. The quality of the completed ACN segmentations was assessed as sufficient. Furthermore, quantitative analyses delivered reliable results about the ACN architecture, automatically obtained contrary to manual stereological approaches. This study demonstrated that ACN segmentation is still the part of the overall workflow that requires improvement regarding the reduction of manual interaction to benefit from available automated software tools. Nevertheless, the results indicated that it could be advantageous taking further efforts to implement a 3D DL-based segmentation approach. As the amount of analysed data was limited, this study was not conducted to obtain representative data about BPD-induced ACN alterations, but to highlight next steps towards a fully automated segmentation and evaluation workflow, enabling larger sample sizes and representative studies.
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.