ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Foundation cell segmentation models performance on live microscopy and spatial-omics data.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate cell segmentation is an essential step for quantitative analysis of biological imaging data. Recent advances in deep learning have led to the development of generalist segmentation models that perform robustly across multiple imaging modalities, including label-free phase contrast, fluorescence cell culture, and multiplexed fluorescence tissue imaging. However, systematic comparisons of these models at the level of downstream biological analysis remain limited. To address this gap, we evaluated several recent segmentation models, including Cellpose cyto3, Cellpose-SAM, μSAM, and CellSAM, on phase contrast and fluorescence cell culture images. In addition, Mesmer and InstanSeg were included for benchmarking on multiplexed fluorescence tissue images generated using CO-Detection by IndEXing (CODEX). We found that Cellpose-SAM achieved strong performance on phase contrast images, while SAM-based models consistently performed well on fluorescence cell culture data. In contrast, no single model consistently outperformed others on CODEX datasets. Instead, each model exhibited distinct strengths and limitations, which led to differences in downstream analyses, including clustering and cell type identification. Together, our study emphasizes the importance of selecting segmentation models based on dataset characteristics and analytical goals, rather than relying on a single universal approach.
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.