Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42665638›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Workflow evaluation of a commercial deep learning-based image analysis tool for the quantification of angiogenesis in vivo.

Christoph Raphael Buhr, Alexander Philippe Maas, Nadine Wiesmann-Imilowski, Juergen Brieger, Christoph Matthias, Benjamin Philipp Ernst, Anita Kloss-Brandstaetter, Philipp Herrmann, Jonas Eckrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christoph Raphael BuhrDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany. buhrchri@uni-mainz.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9551-2310
Alexander Philippe MaasDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Bonn (UKB), 53127, Bonn, Germany.
Nadine Wiesmann-ImilowskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5661-6953
Juergen BriegerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Christoph MatthiasDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Benjamin Philipp ErnstDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Frankfurt, 60596, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4557-2948
Anita Kloss-BrandstaetterDepartment of Engineering & IT, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, 9524, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0873-6704
Philipp HerrmannDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Bonn (UKB), 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-7154-0256
Jonas EckrichDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany. JEckrich@uni-mainz.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5498-4031

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Angiogenesis plays a crucial role in tumor development as well as in wound healing and integration of biomaterials. However, quantification of complex vascular networks across different in vivo models is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to human error. Deep learning-based analysis (DLBA) appears to be a more efficient and reproducible method for vascular quantification . Yet, studies directly comparing its performance with human assessment remain limited. IKOSA CAM is a commercially available tool built for analysis of vascular networks. Here we evaluated IKOSA CAM against manual vessel tracing across three different angiogenesis models. Images obtained from three different in vivo angiogenesis models, the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay, the rodent retina, and the dorsal skinfold chamber (DSC), were analyzed. The vascular network was analyzed using both manual tracing and the commercial deep learning-based image analysis tool IKOSA CAM. In addition, tracing results were reevaluated by human raters and the total workflow duration was assessed. Deep learning-based image analysis proved to be a time-efficient method for tracing and quantifying vascular networks. The level of agreement with manual human tracing varied among image types. The highest agreement between the two methods was observed for the CAM assay. The greatest differences occurred in the tracing of DSC branching points, as indicated by a downward trend in the Bland-Altman plots. Repeated analyses with the DLBA produced identical results for all tested angiogenesis models, confirming excellent reproducibility. Standardized vascular quantification remains a major challenge in experimental angiogenesis research. In this workflow validation study, the evaluated DLBA provided reproducible and time-efficient vessel quantification, particularly for the CAM assay, while showing limitations in the analysis of retinal and DSC images. Overall, DLBA represents a promising approach for standardized vascular analysis and may facilitate reproducible, high-throughput image quantification. Nevertheless, further validation using larger and more heterogeneous datasets is warranted.

Indexed as

AngiogenesisDeep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeovascularization, PathologicNeovascularization, PhysiologicAnimalsChorioallantoic MembraneHumansRatsReproducibility of ResultsRetinaWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID42665638
PMCPMC13524943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.