ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Uncertainty-aware traction force microscopy.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Scaled Multidimensional Assays of Variant Effect Identify Sequence-Function Relationships in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Circulation · 2026Article
- Double Sided Traction Force Microscopy: A Method to Confine Cells for Physiologically Relevant Force Measurements.Cytoskeleton (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Guidance for 3D traction force microscopy today and in the next decade.Nature methods · 2026Review
- Multiparametric Assessment of TNNI3 Variant Phenotypes in Human iPSC-Cardiomyocytes Correlates with Disease Severity in Patients.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traction Force Microscopy (TFM) is a versatile tool to quantify cell-exerted forces by imaging and tracking fiduciary markers embedded in elastic substrates. The computations involved in TFM are often ill-conditioned, and data smoothing or regularization is required to avoid overfitting the noise in the tracked displacements. Most TFM calculations depend critically on the heuristic selection of regularization (hyper-) parameters affecting the balance between overfitting and smoothing. However, TFM methods rarely estimate or account for measurement errors in substrate deformation to adjust the regularization level accordingly. Moreover, there is a lack of tools for uncertainty quantification (UQ) to understand how these errors propagate to the recovered traction stresses. These limitations make it difficult to interpret the TFM readouts and hinder comparing different experiments. This manuscript presents an uncertainty-aware TFM technique that estimates the variability in the magnitude and direction of the traction stress vector recovered at each point in space and time of each experiment. In this technique, a non-parametric bootstrap method perturbs the cross-correlation functional of Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) to assess the uncertainty of the measured deformation. This information is passed on to a hierarchical Bayesian TFM framework with spatially adaptive regularization that propagates the uncertainty to the traction stress readouts (TFM-UQ). We evaluate TFM-UQ using synthetic datasets with prescribed image quality variations and demonstrate its application to experimental datasets. These studies show that TFM-UQ bypasses the need for subjective regularization parameter selection and locally adapts smoothing, outperforming traditional regularization methods. They also illustrate how uncertainty-aware TFM tools can be used to objectively choose key image analysis parameters like PIV window size. We anticipate that these tools will allow for decoupling biological heterogeneity from measurement variability and facilitate automating the analysis of large datasets by parameter-free, input data-based regularization.
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.