ArticleOptics continuum2022
Automated bone cell classification for confocal laser scanning microscopy volumes.
Article in Optics continuum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Manual cell classification in microscopy images is a time-consuming process that heavily relies on the subjective perception of the investigator. Identifying bone cells introduces additional difficulties with irregular geometries, and in some culture conditions, the presence of bone mineral. As fluorescence-based lineage tracing becomes more common, classifying cell types based upon cell color can further increase subjectivity. Our goal is to develop and validate a fully automated cell classification algorithm that can (i) objectively identify cells in flattened volumetric image stacks from three-dimensional (3D) bone cell cultures and (ii) classify the cells (osteoblast-lineage) based on the color of their cell bodies. The algorithm used here was developed in MATLAB 2019a and validated by comparing code outputs to manual labeling for eleven images. The precision, recall, and F1 scores were higher than 0.75 for all cell classifications, with the majority being greater than 0.80. No significant differences were found between the manually labelled and automated cell counts or cell classifications. Analysis time for a single image averaged seventeen seconds compared to more than ten minutes for manual labeling. This demonstrates that the program offers a fast, repeatable, and accurate way to classify bone cells by fluorescence in confocal microscopy image data sets. This process can be expanded to improve investigation of other pre-clinical models and histological sections of pathological tissues where color or fluorescence-based differences are used for cell identification.
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.