ArticleMicroscopy research and technique2025
Ultrastructural Morphometry of Mitochondria: Comparison Between Conventional Operator-Dependent and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Operated Machine Learning Methods.
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 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.
- Sex Differences in Mitochondrial Function: Endocrine Regulation, Immunometabolic Signaling, and Implications for Health and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Ultrastructural Morphometry of Mitochondria: Comparison Between Conventional Operator-Dependent and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Operated Machine Learning Methods.Microscopy research and technique · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Morphometric analysis of digital images is fundamental to substantiate the visual observations with objective quantitative data suitable for statistical analysis. The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have allowed the development of machine learning (ML) protocols for automated morphometry. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) morphometry requires that the ultrastructural details be recognized and interpreted by a trained observer; this makes adapting AI-operated protocols to TEM particularly challenging. In this study, we have checked the accuracy of the results of mitochondrial morphometry yielded by a ML method by comparison with those obtained manually by a trained observer on the same TEM micrographs (magnification ×50,000) of cultured cells with different energy metabolism (overall n = 26). The measured parameter was the ratio between the total length of the mitochondrial cristae and the corresponding mitochondrial surface area (C/A ratio), directly related to mitochondrial function. No statistically significant correlation (Pearson's test) was found between the two methods in any of the experiments. Only in a few micrographs were the values similar (n = 3) or very close (n = 2) to be comprised within the s.e.m. of their experimental group. Moreover, as judged by the s.d. comparison, the scatter of values was more prominent with the ML-operated than with the manual method. Conceivably, this outcome is because many ultrastructural details of the cell organelles are similar, for example, the membrane section profiles, and can only be properly recognized and distinguished by an experienced observer, while the current ML protocols still cannot.
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.