ArticleBiophysical journal2025
Automated atomic force microscopy analysis using convolutional and recurrent neural networks.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Poking cells: AI can help here too.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Atomic force microscope (AFM) indentation allows high-resolution spatial characterization of biomechanical properties of cells and tissues. Rapid, reproducible, and quantitative analysis of AFM force curves has been challenging due to several technical limitations, such as excessive noise and uncertainty associated with contact-point determination. Here, we propose a novel machine-learning algorithm composed of convolutional bidirectional long short-term memory neural networks called Convolutional Bidirectional Recurrent Architecture (COBRA) that can reliably process raw AFM elastography data, triage poor-quality curves, and accurately identify the contact point without any a priori knowledge of underlying material properties. Using over 5000 manually curated force curves on seven different healthy and diseased cell types, we trained several regression and classification algorithms to compare their utility. In contrast to classical analytical or semi-quantitative techniques and other machine-learning methods, the COBRA approach identified low-quality or anomalous indentation events better, with an area under the curve of 0.92, and it estimated the contact point with the minimal absolute error of 28 ± 3 nm and pointwise elastic modulus with mean absolute percentage error of 5.3% ± 0.7%. The method was also successful in identifying the contact point in independently acquired AFM data from the literature with divergent probes and substrates. In conclusion, our method can rapidly filter low-quality AFM force curves and automatically process raw indentation data with the lowest error levels, allowing high-throughput analyses with increased precision and reproducibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.