ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Systematic evaluation of computational methods for cell segmentation.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Foreign Body Response to Neuroimplantation: Machine Learning-Assisted Quantitative Analysis of Astrogliosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Spatial multiomics to inform immunocytokine engineering: knowledge base, gaps, and QC solutions.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cell segmentation plays a crucial role in elucidating cell structure and function, understanding disease mechanisms, and aiding pathological diagnosis. Current surveys primarily categorize methods by their technical evolution stages, which may not fully capture the paradigm shift brought by deep learning. Moreover, their evaluation scope is largely confined to image-only approaches, overlooking the significant potential of multimodal data in enhancing cell/nucleus segmentation performance. Therefore, we propose a dual-dimensional classification framework for deep learning methods. It categorizes such methods into two types: task-oriented (e.g. semantic or instance segmentation) and data-oriented (e.g. single or multimodal inputs). Based on this, we systematically classify and summarize methods across various segmentation tasks and imaging modalities. We also develop a benchmark test that covers both single-modal and multimodal methods. This test uses five diverse datasets, among which four are from conventional microscopy and one integrates sequencing with image data. Furthermore, it assesses seven algorithms based on three dimensions: effectiveness, robustness, and efficiency. Key findings indicate that deep learning models generally outperform traditional algorithms, with their advantage becoming more pronounced when image data is integrated with sequencing information.
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.