ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Interpretable Multi-Feature Optical Analysis for Stage- and Batch-Aware Quality Assessment of Brain-Organoid Cultures.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reliable quality assessment of brain organoids is important for reproducible culture and downstream experimentation, yet routine evaluation relies largely on qualitative brightfield inspection. We investigated whether visual QA criteria could be represented by interpretable image descriptors while accounting for developmental stage and culture batch. We analyzed 692 brightfield image-ROI pairs from six culture batches. Binary QA labels were assigned by one expert. We compared 115 handcrafted features with simple morphology and frozen pretrained DINOv2 and ResNet-50 representations using logistic-regression and random-forest classifiers. Leave-one-batch-out (LOBO) testing was the primary exploratory evaluation; repeated image-level cross-validation and maturation-only analyses provided complementary assessments. Handcrafted logistic regression achieved a pooled LOBO ROC AUC of 0.836 (conditional 95% batch bootstrap interval 0.625-0.960), with substantial variation among held-out batches. Mean repeated-CV AUC was 0.933 across all stages and 0.895 within maturation. At a fixed 0.5 score cutoff, all-stage LOBO sensitivity was 0.656 and specificity was 0.869. The comparison concerns the evaluated frozen-feature pipelines and does not establish superiority over fine-tuned deep learning. These results provide an exploratory image-analysis baseline for brightfield QA; label reproducibility and performance beyond the observed laboratory workflow require further validation.
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.