ArticleJournal of biomolecular techniques : JBT2025
Comparison of Independent Analyses of Identical Image Sets Reveals Significant Analyst-to-Analyst Variability.
Article in Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Light Microscopy Research Group, a research group with the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities, organized a global study where participants were given artificially generated images of various specimens with various signal-to-noise and object proximity levels. Users were tasked with segmenting the images and providing measured metrics as part of the study. Rather than ranking algorithms, our goal was to study the sources of variability of the results across participants given the same task. This study highlights that substantial variability can exist between independent analyses of identical datasets, even when the analysis problem is relatively straightforward and the analysts are experienced. These findings further support the need for data and analysis methods that follow the findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable (FAIR) principles.
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.