Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42680994›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2026

Artificial Neural Networks for Bioimage Analysis.

Richard Cole, Danielle Hunt, Jian Wei Tay

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 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

3 authors.

Richard ColeWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Danielle HuntWadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Jian Wei TayOptical Imaging Core, Van Andel Institute, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. jian.tay@vai.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative optical microscopy has grown to become an accepted methodology in biology and biomedical research labs. This technique has enabled new biological discoveries by relying on the computational analysis of microscopy datasets to provide a detailed look at the complex behavior and interactions of individual cells and molecules. However, as modern microscopy techniques evolve, the resulting datasets increase in both size and complexity, which has led to difficulties in scaling up with traditional analytical methods. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have emerged as promising solutions for bioimage analysis. In this chapter, we provide an introduction for researchers looking to implement AI/ML in their imaging pipelines, highlighting commonly used network architectures and models and their applications, and providing practical advice for their implementation and validation.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopyNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningSoft ComputingArtificial intelligenceImage analysisImage processingImage segmentationMachine learningMicroscopy

Identifiers

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.