You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A 3D segmentation algorithm was therefore created to combine information from the nuclear staining and a ubiquitous membrane marker (in this case CD45) to define single-cell boundaries in crowded images such as lymphoid tissues. For each segmented object (i.e., cell) a marker expression profile, as well as the identities of the nearby neighbors were recorded (using Delaunay triangulation)
There is another blog post that mentions volumetric segmentation (as opposed to ilastik which afaik is only 2D). It's a little unclear exactly what capabilities they are referring to within CellProfiler but it may simply be this 3D watershed implementation: watershed.py. I don't see any modules in CellProfiler for segmentation that are also designed to work in 3D.
This post also mentions the Allen Cell Explorer which seems like a great way to curate 3D volumes
This is a bit off topic for segmentation but the T-cell imaging data used for it could be useful
Models Specific to Medical Imaging
U-Net (Example TF-based implementation) - This appears to be a real workhorse architecture in medical image segmentation (there are dozens of implementations in TensorFlow and Caffe)
V-Net - A TensorFlow implementation of 3d extensions to the U-Net
NiftyNet (Site) - "NiftyNet is a TensorFlow-based open-source convolutional neural networks (CNN) platform for research in medical image analysis and image-guided therapy."
If we have to retrain an architecture for segmentation I have to imagine this would be a top choice.
Supports 2-D, 2.5-D, 3-D, 4-D inputs
It has a Model Zoo but nothing in there for our modality yet, or anything even close
My gut says we'd never have enough data to train these big general kinds of models but who knows
SegNet - Another generic architecture for semantic segmentation which I only mention because it was brought up along with U-Nets in this webinar on advances in medical image analysis
Comments from @nsamusik on some things to keep in mind:
My main thought at this point is that the segmentation itself is just the first step, there also has to be a second step, where cell boundaries are optimized concomitantly with estimating the single-cell expression vectors. This way both the optimized cell boundaries and the expression data will likely look more accurate.
As for the benchmarking, I am happy to share a hand-labelled dataset that I have generated for the CODEX paper revisions. Here, each TIFF is matched with a TXT file that contains the coordinates of hand-labeled cell centers (X, Y, Z). There are no cell outlines labelled here, just the centers. In order to assess the segmentation quality, I computed several measures: R = Recall (% of hand-labelled centeres that ended up within a segmented cell region), S= Singlets (of those, what % how many ended up in a cell region with exactly 1 hand-labelled center), FPR = False positive rate (% cell regions without a hand-labelled center). Then I combined the three in a harmonic mean 3/(1/R + 1/S + 1/(1-FPR))
Relevant section from the CODEX preprint:
Software
Expanding on that list a bit:
Models Specific to Medical Imaging
Generic Architectures
Comments from @nsamusik on some things to keep in mind:
My main thought at this point is that the segmentation itself is just the first step, there also has to be a second step, where cell boundaries are optimized concomitantly with estimating the single-cell expression vectors. This way both the optimized cell boundaries and the expression data will likely look more accurate.
As for the benchmarking, I am happy to share a hand-labelled dataset that I have generated for the CODEX paper revisions. Here, each TIFF is matched with a TXT file that contains the coordinates of hand-labeled cell centers (X, Y, Z). There are no cell outlines labelled here, just the centers. In order to assess the segmentation quality, I computed several measures: R = Recall (% of hand-labelled centeres that ended up within a segmented cell region), S= Singlets (of those, what % how many ended up in a cell region with exactly 1 hand-labelled center), FPR = False positive rate (% cell regions without a hand-labelled center). Then I combined the three in a harmonic mean 3/(1/R + 1/S + 1/(1-FPR))
here's the link
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wUNaZ5dv2mDn_wwcSXlnfof6SwoQmlsq
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: