Cargando…

Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery

SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) can visualize cellular morphology and measure dry mass. Automated segmentation of QPI imagery is desirable for tracking neuron growth. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have provided state-of-the-art results for image segmentation. Improving the amou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gil, Eddie M., Steelman, Zachary A., Sedelnikova, Anna, Bixler, Joel N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10311234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37398700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.10.3.035004
_version_ 1785066699415879680
author Gil, Eddie M.
Steelman, Zachary A.
Sedelnikova, Anna
Bixler, Joel N.
author_facet Gil, Eddie M.
Steelman, Zachary A.
Sedelnikova, Anna
Bixler, Joel N.
author_sort Gil, Eddie M.
collection PubMed
description SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) can visualize cellular morphology and measure dry mass. Automated segmentation of QPI imagery is desirable for tracking neuron growth. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have provided state-of-the-art results for image segmentation. Improving the amount and robustness of training data is often crucial to improving CNN output on novel samples, but acquiring enough labeled data can be labor intensive. Data augmentation and simulation can be used to address this, but it is unclear whether low-complexity data can result in useful network generalization. AIM: We trained CNNs on abstract images of neurons and on augmented images of real neurons. We then benchmarked the resulting models against human labeling. APPROACH: We used a stochastic simulation of neuron growth to guide abstract QPI image and label generation. We then tested the segmentation performance of networks trained on augmented data and networks trained on simulated data against manual labeling established via consensus of three human labelers. RESULTS: We show that training on augmented real data resulted in a model that achieved the best Dice coefficients in our group of CNNs. The largest percent difference in dry mass estimation with respect to the ground truth was driven by segmentation errors of cell debris and phase noise. The error in dry mass when considering the cell body alone was similar between the CNNs. Neurite pixels only accounted for [Formula: see text] of the total image space, making them a difficult feature to learn. Future efforts should consider methods for improving neurite segmentation quality. CONCLUSIONS: Augmented data outperformed the simulated abstract data for this testing set. The quality of segmentation of neurites was the key difference in performance between the models. Notably, even humans performed poorly when segmenting neurites. Further work is needed to improve the segmentation quality of neurites.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10311234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103112342023-07-01 Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery Gil, Eddie M. Steelman, Zachary A. Sedelnikova, Anna Bixler, Joel N. Neurophotonics Research Papers SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) can visualize cellular morphology and measure dry mass. Automated segmentation of QPI imagery is desirable for tracking neuron growth. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have provided state-of-the-art results for image segmentation. Improving the amount and robustness of training data is often crucial to improving CNN output on novel samples, but acquiring enough labeled data can be labor intensive. Data augmentation and simulation can be used to address this, but it is unclear whether low-complexity data can result in useful network generalization. AIM: We trained CNNs on abstract images of neurons and on augmented images of real neurons. We then benchmarked the resulting models against human labeling. APPROACH: We used a stochastic simulation of neuron growth to guide abstract QPI image and label generation. We then tested the segmentation performance of networks trained on augmented data and networks trained on simulated data against manual labeling established via consensus of three human labelers. RESULTS: We show that training on augmented real data resulted in a model that achieved the best Dice coefficients in our group of CNNs. The largest percent difference in dry mass estimation with respect to the ground truth was driven by segmentation errors of cell debris and phase noise. The error in dry mass when considering the cell body alone was similar between the CNNs. Neurite pixels only accounted for [Formula: see text] of the total image space, making them a difficult feature to learn. Future efforts should consider methods for improving neurite segmentation quality. CONCLUSIONS: Augmented data outperformed the simulated abstract data for this testing set. The quality of segmentation of neurites was the key difference in performance between the models. Notably, even humans performed poorly when segmenting neurites. Further work is needed to improve the segmentation quality of neurites. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers 2023-06-30 2023-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10311234/ /pubmed/37398700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.10.3.035004 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.
spellingShingle Research Papers
Gil, Eddie M.
Steelman, Zachary A.
Sedelnikova, Anna
Bixler, Joel N.
Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title_full Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title_fullStr Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title_short Comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
title_sort comparing the segmentation of quantitative phase images of neurons using convolutional neural networks trained on simulated and augmented imagery
topic Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10311234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37398700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.10.3.035004
work_keys_str_mv AT gileddiem comparingthesegmentationofquantitativephaseimagesofneuronsusingconvolutionalneuralnetworkstrainedonsimulatedandaugmentedimagery
AT steelmanzacharya comparingthesegmentationofquantitativephaseimagesofneuronsusingconvolutionalneuralnetworkstrainedonsimulatedandaugmentedimagery
AT sedelnikovaanna comparingthesegmentationofquantitativephaseimagesofneuronsusingconvolutionalneuralnetworkstrainedonsimulatedandaugmentedimagery
AT bixlerjoeln comparingthesegmentationofquantitativephaseimagesofneuronsusingconvolutionalneuralnetworkstrainedonsimulatedandaugmentedimagery