Cargando…

Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance

Developments in high-throughput microscopy have made it possible to collect huge amounts of cell image data that are difficult to analyse manually. Machine learning (e.g., deep learning) is often employed to automate the extraction of information from these data, such as cell counting, cell type cla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ogawa, Taisaku, Ochiai, Koji, Iwata, Tomoharu, Ikawa, Tomokatsu, Tsuzuki, Taku, Shiroguchi, Katsuyuki, Takahashi, Koichi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35085287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262397
_version_ 1784640774464339968
author Ogawa, Taisaku
Ochiai, Koji
Iwata, Tomoharu
Ikawa, Tomokatsu
Tsuzuki, Taku
Shiroguchi, Katsuyuki
Takahashi, Koichi
author_facet Ogawa, Taisaku
Ochiai, Koji
Iwata, Tomoharu
Ikawa, Tomokatsu
Tsuzuki, Taku
Shiroguchi, Katsuyuki
Takahashi, Koichi
author_sort Ogawa, Taisaku
collection PubMed
description Developments in high-throughput microscopy have made it possible to collect huge amounts of cell image data that are difficult to analyse manually. Machine learning (e.g., deep learning) is often employed to automate the extraction of information from these data, such as cell counting, cell type classification and image segmentation. However, the effects of different imaging methods on the accuracy of image processing have not been examined systematically. We studied the effects of different imaging methods on the performance of machine learning-based cell type classifiers. We observed lymphoid-primed multipotential progenitor (LMPP) and pro-B cells using three imaging methods: differential interference contrast (DIC), phase contrast (Ph) and bright-field (BF). We examined the classification performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with each of them and their combinations. CNNs achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ~0.9, which was significantly better than when the classifier used only cell size or cell contour shape as input. However, no significant differences were found between imaging methods and focal positions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8794178
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87941782022-01-28 Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance Ogawa, Taisaku Ochiai, Koji Iwata, Tomoharu Ikawa, Tomokatsu Tsuzuki, Taku Shiroguchi, Katsuyuki Takahashi, Koichi PLoS One Research Article Developments in high-throughput microscopy have made it possible to collect huge amounts of cell image data that are difficult to analyse manually. Machine learning (e.g., deep learning) is often employed to automate the extraction of information from these data, such as cell counting, cell type classification and image segmentation. However, the effects of different imaging methods on the accuracy of image processing have not been examined systematically. We studied the effects of different imaging methods on the performance of machine learning-based cell type classifiers. We observed lymphoid-primed multipotential progenitor (LMPP) and pro-B cells using three imaging methods: differential interference contrast (DIC), phase contrast (Ph) and bright-field (BF). We examined the classification performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with each of them and their combinations. CNNs achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ~0.9, which was significantly better than when the classifier used only cell size or cell contour shape as input. However, no significant differences were found between imaging methods and focal positions. Public Library of Science 2022-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8794178/ /pubmed/35085287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262397 Text en © 2022 Ogawa et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ogawa, Taisaku
Ochiai, Koji
Iwata, Tomoharu
Ikawa, Tomokatsu
Tsuzuki, Taku
Shiroguchi, Katsuyuki
Takahashi, Koichi
Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title_full Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title_fullStr Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title_full_unstemmed Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title_short Different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
title_sort different cell imaging methods did not significantly improve immune cell image classification performance
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35085287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262397
work_keys_str_mv AT ogawataisaku differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT ochiaikoji differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT iwatatomoharu differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT ikawatomokatsu differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT tsuzukitaku differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT shiroguchikatsuyuki differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance
AT takahashikoichi differentcellimagingmethodsdidnotsignificantlyimproveimmunecellimageclassificationperformance