Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42079124›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Foundation cell segmentation models performance on live microscopy and spatial-omics data.

Yang Miao, Nick Surguladze, Josh Lerner, Koravit Poysungnoen, Ky Ariano, Yuexi Li, Yining Zhu, Kyra Van Batavia, Jodie Jepson, Josie Van De Klashorst and 5 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Yang MiaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Nick SurguladzeDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Josh LernerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Koravit PoysungnoenDepartment of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Ky ArianoDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Yuexi LiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Yining ZhuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Kyra Van BataviaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Jodie JepsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Josie Van De KlashorstDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Bobby Y X NiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Alexander ArmstrongDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Reeha RahmanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Roarke HorstmeyerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
John W HickeyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9961-7673

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42079124
PMCPMC13131665

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.