Cell Image Classification: A Comparative Overview.
Clicks: 390
ID: 100050
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
390 views
75 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 5 articles by views in cytometry part a : the journal of the international society for analytical cytology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Cell image classification methods are currently being used in numerous applications in cell biology and medicine. Applications include understanding the effects of genes and drugs in screening experiments, understanding the role and subcellular localization of different proteins, as well as diagnosis and prognosis of cancer from images acquired using cytological and histological techniques. The article also reviews three main approaches for cell image classification most often used: numerical feature extraction, end-to-end classification with neural networks (NNs), and transport-based morphometry (TBM). In addition, we provide comparisons on four different cell imaging datasets to highlight the relative strength of each method. The results computed using four publicly available datasets show that numerical features tend to carry the best discriminative information for most of the classification tasks. Results also show that NN-based methods produce state-of-the-art results in the dataset that contains a relatively large number of training samples. Data augmentation or the choice of a more recently reported architecture does not necessarily improve the classification performance of NNs in the datasets with limited number of training samples. If understanding and visualization are desired aspects, TBM methods can offer the ability to invert classification functions, and thus can aid in the interpretation of results. These and other comparison outcomes are discussed with the aim of clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of each method. © 2020 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry.
| Reference Key |
shifaterabbi2020cellcytometry
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Shifat-E-Rabbi, Mohammad;Yin, Xuwang;Fitzgerald, Cailey E;Rohde, Gustavo K; |
| Journal | cytometry part a : the journal of the international society for analytical cytology |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1002/cyto.a.23984
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.