Cargando…
Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations
Cell segmentation is a cornerstone of many bioimage informatics studies, and inaccurate segmentation introduces error in downstream analysis. Evaluating segmentation results is thus a necessary step for developing segmentation methods as well as for choosing the most appropriate method for a particu...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The American Society for Cell Biology
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10208095/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36515991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E22-08-0364 |
_version_ | 1785046598921748480 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Haoran Murphy, Robert F. |
author_facet | Chen, Haoran Murphy, Robert F. |
author_sort | Chen, Haoran |
collection | PubMed |
description | Cell segmentation is a cornerstone of many bioimage informatics studies, and inaccurate segmentation introduces error in downstream analysis. Evaluating segmentation results is thus a necessary step for developing segmentation methods as well as for choosing the most appropriate method for a particular type of sample. The evaluation process has typically involved comparison of segmentations with those generated by humans, which can be expensive and subject to unknown bias. We present here an approach to evaluating cell segmentation methods without relying upon comparison to results from humans. For this, we defined a number of segmentation quality metrics that can be applied to multichannel fluorescence images. We calculated these metrics for 14 previously described segmentation methods applied to datasets from four multiplexed microscope modalities covering five tissues. Using principal component analysis to combine the metrics, we defined an overall cell segmentation quality score and ranked the segmentation methods. We found that two deep learning–based methods performed the best overall, but that results for all methods could be significantly improved by postprocessing to ensure proper matching of cell and nuclear masks. Our evaluation tool is available as open source and all code and data are available in a Reproducible Research Archive. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10208095 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | The American Society for Cell Biology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102080952023-07-20 Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations Chen, Haoran Murphy, Robert F. Mol Biol Cell Articles Cell segmentation is a cornerstone of many bioimage informatics studies, and inaccurate segmentation introduces error in downstream analysis. Evaluating segmentation results is thus a necessary step for developing segmentation methods as well as for choosing the most appropriate method for a particular type of sample. The evaluation process has typically involved comparison of segmentations with those generated by humans, which can be expensive and subject to unknown bias. We present here an approach to evaluating cell segmentation methods without relying upon comparison to results from humans. For this, we defined a number of segmentation quality metrics that can be applied to multichannel fluorescence images. We calculated these metrics for 14 previously described segmentation methods applied to datasets from four multiplexed microscope modalities covering five tissues. Using principal component analysis to combine the metrics, we defined an overall cell segmentation quality score and ranked the segmentation methods. We found that two deep learning–based methods performed the best overall, but that results for all methods could be significantly improved by postprocessing to ensure proper matching of cell and nuclear masks. Our evaluation tool is available as open source and all code and data are available in a Reproducible Research Archive. The American Society for Cell Biology 2023-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10208095/ /pubmed/36515991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E22-08-0364 Text en © 2023 Chen and Murphy. “ASCB®,” “The American Society for Cell Biology®,” and “Molecular Biology of the Cell®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution 4.0 International Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Articles Chen, Haoran Murphy, Robert F. Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title | Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title_full | Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title_short | Evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
title_sort | evaluation of cell segmentation methods without reference segmentations |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10208095/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36515991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E22-08-0364 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenhaoran evaluationofcellsegmentationmethodswithoutreferencesegmentations AT murphyrobertf evaluationofcellsegmentationmethodswithoutreferencesegmentations |