2020
DOI: 10.1002/cpcb.101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine Learning for Analysis of Microscopy Images: A Practical Guide

Abstract: The explosive growth of machine learning has provided scientists with insights into data in ways unattainable using prior research techniques. It has allowed the detection of biological features that were previously unrecognized and overlooked. However, because machine‐learning methodology originates from informatics, many cell biology labs have experienced difficulties in implementing this approach. In this article, we target the rapidly expanding audience of cell and molecular biologists interested in exploi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Training data was obtained from four image stacks, selected from four different captures and two imaging sessions. Compared to the deep learning models sometimes used for semantic segmentation [ 41 ], the Trainable Weka approach requires only a very small selection of training data, although high quality results may require an iterative process involving assessment of representative segmentations, followed by updating the model with additional training data. Our macrophage model required two revision steps, primarily to add robustness against heterogeneity in noise and contrast between image captures.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Training data was obtained from four image stacks, selected from four different captures and two imaging sessions. Compared to the deep learning models sometimes used for semantic segmentation [ 41 ], the Trainable Weka approach requires only a very small selection of training data, although high quality results may require an iterative process involving assessment of representative segmentations, followed by updating the model with additional training data. Our macrophage model required two revision steps, primarily to add robustness against heterogeneity in noise and contrast between image captures.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The role of the image features, using algorithms provided by the ImageJ platform and the ImageScience plugin [ 23 ], resembles that of the earlier convolutional layers in the deep learning models such as U-Net [ 29 ] sometimes used for semantic segmentation [ 41 ]. However, using predefined image features radically reduces the cost of training in computational time and in the requirement for manually segmented training data, although the modeller must ensure that the selected features and scales capture sufficient spatial context for pixel classification.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The role of the image features, using algorithms provided by the ImageJ platform and the ImageScience plugin (Meijering, 2015), resembles that of the earlier convolutional layers in the deep learning models sometimes used for semantic segmentation (Zinchuk & Grossenbacher-Zinchuk, 2020). However, using predefined image features radically reduces the cost of training in computational time and in the requirement for manually segmented training data, although the modeller must ensure that the selected features and scales capture sufficient spatial context for pixel classification.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Training data was obtained from four image stacks, selected from four different captures and two imaging sessions. Compared to the deep learning models sometimes used for semantic segmentation (Zinchuk & Grossenbacher-Zinchuk, 2020), the Trainable Weka approach requires only a very small selection of training data, although high quality results may require an iterative process involving assessment of representative segmentations, followed by updating the model with additional training data. A total of 16330 voxels were labelled with one of the 4 segmentation classes, equivalent to less than 0.1% of a single image stack cropped to the size of a macrophage (approx.…”
Section: Semantic Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review on future trends in microscopy around that time already commented that for complex visual tasks “a good deal of faith is now placed in electronic neural networks” [181] . Indeed, the use of ANNs caught on during the 1990s [182] , [183] , [184] and 2000s [185] , [186] , [187] , but as in biomedical imaging at large, deep learning began to be massively adopted for bioimage analysis only in recent years [188] , [189] , [190] , [191] , [192] , [193] , [194] . We briefly discuss some of the common tasks in bioimage analysis ( Fig.…”
Section: Deep Learning For Bioimage Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%