• Something wrong with this record ?

Performance and sensitivity evaluation of 3D spot detection methods in confocal microscopy

K. Štěpka, P. Matula, P. Matula, S. Wörz, K. Rohr, M. Kozubek,

. 2015 ; 87 (8) : 759-72. [pub] 20150528

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

E-resources Online Full text

NLK Free Medical Journals from 2003 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2012-06-01 to 1 year ago
Wiley Free Content from 2003 to 1 year ago

Reliable 3D detection of diffraction-limited spots in fluorescence microscopy images is an important task in subcellular observation. Generally, fluorescence microscopy images are heavily degraded by noise and non-specifically stained background, making reliable detection a challenging task. In this work, we have studied the performance and parameter sensitivity of eight recent methods for 3D spot detection. The study is based on both 3D synthetic image data and 3D real confocal microscopy images. The synthetic images were generated using a simulator modeling the complete imaging setup, including the optical path as well as the image acquisition process. We studied the detection performance and parameter sensitivity under different noise levels and under the influence of uneven background signal. To evaluate the parameter sensitivity, we propose a novel measure based on the gradient magnitude of the F1 score. We measured the success rate of the individual methods for different types of the image data and found that the type of image degradation is an important factor. Using the F1 score and the newly proposed sensitivity measure, we found that the parameter sensitivity is not necessarily proportional to the success rate of a method. This also provided an explanation why the best performing method for synthetic data was outperformed by other methods when applied to the real microscopy images. On the basis of the results obtained, we conclude with the recommendation of the HDome method for data with relatively low variations in quality, or the Sorokin method for image sets in which the quality varies more. We also provide alternative recommendations for high-quality images, and for situations in which detailed parameter tuning might be deemed expensive.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16020719
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20160725113750.0
007      
ta
008      
160722s2015 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1002/cyto.a.22692 $2 doi
024    7_
$a 10.1002/cyto.a.22692 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26033916
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Štěpka, Karel $u Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Performance and sensitivity evaluation of 3D spot detection methods in confocal microscopy / $c K. Štěpka, P. Matula, P. Matula, S. Wörz, K. Rohr, M. Kozubek,
520    9_
$a Reliable 3D detection of diffraction-limited spots in fluorescence microscopy images is an important task in subcellular observation. Generally, fluorescence microscopy images are heavily degraded by noise and non-specifically stained background, making reliable detection a challenging task. In this work, we have studied the performance and parameter sensitivity of eight recent methods for 3D spot detection. The study is based on both 3D synthetic image data and 3D real confocal microscopy images. The synthetic images were generated using a simulator modeling the complete imaging setup, including the optical path as well as the image acquisition process. We studied the detection performance and parameter sensitivity under different noise levels and under the influence of uneven background signal. To evaluate the parameter sensitivity, we propose a novel measure based on the gradient magnitude of the F1 score. We measured the success rate of the individual methods for different types of the image data and found that the type of image degradation is an important factor. Using the F1 score and the newly proposed sensitivity measure, we found that the parameter sensitivity is not necessarily proportional to the success rate of a method. This also provided an explanation why the best performing method for synthetic data was outperformed by other methods when applied to the real microscopy images. On the basis of the results obtained, we conclude with the recommendation of the HDome method for data with relatively low variations in quality, or the Sorokin method for image sets in which the quality varies more. We also provide alternative recommendations for high-quality images, and for situations in which detailed parameter tuning might be deemed expensive.
650    _2
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a počítačové zpracování obrazu $x metody $7 D007091
650    _2
$a zobrazování trojrozměrné $x metody $7 D021621
650    _2
$a konfokální mikroskopie $x metody $7 D018613
650    _2
$a fluorescenční mikroskopie $x metody $7 D008856
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Matula, Pavel $u Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Matula, Petr $u Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Wörz, Stefan $u IPMB and BIOQUANT, Department of Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics, and DKFZ, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Rohr, Karl $u IPMB and BIOQUANT, Department of Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics, and DKFZ, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Kozubek, Michal $u Centre for Biomedical Image Analysis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00013935 $t Cytometry. Part A the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology $x 1552-4930 $g Roč. 87, č. 8 (2015), s. 759-72
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26033916 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20160722 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20160725114008 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1155389 $s 945247
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 87 $c 8 $d 759-72 $e 20150528 $i 1552-4930 $m Cytometry. Part A $n Cytometry A $x MED00013935
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20160722

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...