ReviewJournal of microscopy2026
Reproducibility assessment of a published cell shape transition analysis workflow.
Review in Journal of microscopy, 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
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
Image quantification is central to modern biomedical research. However, the reproducibility of image-based studies remains a persistent challenge due to limited access to raw data and incomplete reporting of analysis workflows. To assess these issues, the Global Bioimage Analyst Society (GloBIAS) launched a coordinated effort in 2024 to examine published bioimage analysis workflows. Here, we evaluated the reproducibility of a published workflow for analysing cell shape transitions in Dictyostelium discoideum. While the reported kymographs and biological conclusions could be qualitatively reproduced, a critical upstream step - cell segmentation - was insufficiently described. Reproducing the segmentation step based on the available information required extensive parameter tuning and failed to consistently capture accurate cell contours, thereby compromising downstream analysis. To evaluate whether the downstream analytical components could be reproduced when segmentation quality was improved, we adopted an alternative segmentation strategy using ilastik, a machine learning-based image analysis tool. Using cell-boundary coordinates extracted from ilastik-based masks as alternative inputs for downstream analysis, we reconstructed kymographs that partially matched the published results. Our findings demonstrate that accessible software and raw data alone are insufficient to ensure reproducibility in image-based research. Complete reporting of image-processing workflows, including segmentation strategies and parameter settings, is essential for the reliable reproduction of published quantitative analyses.
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.