Cargando…

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction

Predicting Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) cell functions in stem cell implants using non-invasive bright field microscopy imaging is a critical task for clinical deployment of stem cell therapies. Such cell function predictions can be carried out using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based models. In...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Padi, Sarala, Manescu, Petru, Schaub, Nicholas, Hotaling, Nathan, Simon, Carl, Bharti, Kapil, Bajcsy, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7450761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864421
_version_ 1783574858796367872
author Padi, Sarala
Manescu, Petru
Schaub, Nicholas
Hotaling, Nathan
Simon, Carl
Bharti, Kapil
Bajcsy, Peter
author_facet Padi, Sarala
Manescu, Petru
Schaub, Nicholas
Hotaling, Nathan
Simon, Carl
Bharti, Kapil
Bajcsy, Peter
author_sort Padi, Sarala
collection PubMed
description Predicting Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) cell functions in stem cell implants using non-invasive bright field microscopy imaging is a critical task for clinical deployment of stem cell therapies. Such cell function predictions can be carried out using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based models. In this paper we used Traditional Machine Learning (TML) and Deep Learning (DL) based AI models for cell function prediction tasks. TML models depend on feature engineering and DL models perform feature engineering automatically but have higher modeling complexity. This work aims at exploring the tradeoffs between three approaches using TML and DL based models for RPE cell function prediction from microscopy images and at understanding the accuracy relationship between pixel-, cell feature-, and implant label-level accuracies of models. Among the three compared approaches to cell function prediction, the direct approach to cell function prediction from images is slightly more accurate in comparison to indirect approaches using intermediate segmentation and/or feature engineering steps. We also evaluated accuracy variations with respect to model selections (five TML models and two DL models) and model configurations (with and without transfer learning). Finally, we quantified the relationships between segmentation accuracy and the number of samples used for training a model, segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, and cell feature error and accuracy of implant labels. We concluded that for the RPE cell data set, there is a monotonic relationship between the number of training samples and image segmentation accuracy, and between segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, but there is no such a relationship between segmentation accuracy and accuracy of RPE implant labels.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7450761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74507612020-08-27 Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction Padi, Sarala Manescu, Petru Schaub, Nicholas Hotaling, Nathan Simon, Carl Bharti, Kapil Bajcsy, Peter Inform Med Unlocked Article Predicting Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) cell functions in stem cell implants using non-invasive bright field microscopy imaging is a critical task for clinical deployment of stem cell therapies. Such cell function predictions can be carried out using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based models. In this paper we used Traditional Machine Learning (TML) and Deep Learning (DL) based AI models for cell function prediction tasks. TML models depend on feature engineering and DL models perform feature engineering automatically but have higher modeling complexity. This work aims at exploring the tradeoffs between three approaches using TML and DL based models for RPE cell function prediction from microscopy images and at understanding the accuracy relationship between pixel-, cell feature-, and implant label-level accuracies of models. Among the three compared approaches to cell function prediction, the direct approach to cell function prediction from images is slightly more accurate in comparison to indirect approaches using intermediate segmentation and/or feature engineering steps. We also evaluated accuracy variations with respect to model selections (five TML models and two DL models) and model configurations (with and without transfer learning). Finally, we quantified the relationships between segmentation accuracy and the number of samples used for training a model, segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, and cell feature error and accuracy of implant labels. We concluded that for the RPE cell data set, there is a monotonic relationship between the number of training samples and image segmentation accuracy, and between segmentation accuracy and cell feature error, but there is no such a relationship between segmentation accuracy and accuracy of RPE implant labels. 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7450761/ /pubmed/32864421 Text en This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Padi, Sarala
Manescu, Petru
Schaub, Nicholas
Hotaling, Nathan
Simon, Carl
Bharti, Kapil
Bajcsy, Peter
Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title_full Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title_fullStr Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title_short Comparison of Artificial Intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
title_sort comparison of artificial intelligence based approaches to cell function prediction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7450761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864421
work_keys_str_mv AT padisarala comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT manescupetru comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT schaubnicholas comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT hotalingnathan comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT simoncarl comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT bhartikapil comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction
AT bajcsypeter comparisonofartificialintelligencebasedapproachestocellfunctionprediction