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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |