ArticleScientific reports2026
A fully automated workflow for the digital image analysis of the intestinal microcolony survival assay.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manual analysis of histopathological images is often time-consuming and painstaking, and it is also prone to errors arising from subjective evaluation criteria and human mistakes. To address these issues, we created a fully automated workflow (AW) to enumerate jejunal crypts in a microcolony survival assay to quantify gastrointestinal damage from radiation. After obtaining images of jejunal slices from irradiated mice, the AW performed cropping and normalizing of the individual slice images for resolution and color; using deep learning to detect crypts on each slice; using a tailored algorithm to enumerate the crypts; and tabulating and saving the results. A graphical user interface was developed to allow users to review and correct the automated results. Manual counting of crypts exhibited a mean absolute percent deviation of (34 ± 26)% between individuals vs. the group mean across counters, which was reduced to (11 ± 6)% across the 3 most-experienced counters. AW counts deviated from experts’ mean counts by (10 ± 8)%. With a single button press, the AW processed a sample image dataset from 60 mice in a few hours. The AW thereby allowed rapid, automated evaluation of the microcolony survival assay with accuracy comparable to that of trained experts and without subjective inter-observer variation.
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.