ArticleAI open2024
CellBoost: A pipeline for machine assisted annotation in neuroanatomy.
Article in AI open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
One of the important yet labor intensive tasks in neuroanatomy is the identification of select populations of cells. Current high-throughput techniques enable marking cells with histochemical fluorescent molecules as well as through the genetic expression of fluorescent proteins. Modern scanning microscopes allow high resolution multi-channel imaging of the mechanically or optically sectioned brain with thousands of marked cells per square millimeter. Manual identification of all marked cells is prohibitively time consuming. At the same time, simple segmentation algorithms suffer from high error rates and sensitivity to variation in fluorescent intensity and spatial distribution. We present a methodology that combines human judgement and machine learning that serves to significantly reduce the labor of the anatomist while improving the consistency of the annotation. As a demonstration, we analyzed murine brains with marked premotor neurons in the brainstem. We compared the error rate of our method to the disagreement rate among human anatomists. This comparison shows that our method can reduce the time to annotate by as much as ten-fold without significantly increasing the rate of errors. We show that our method achieves significant reduction in labor while achieving an accuracy that is similar to the level of agreement between different anatomists.
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.