↓ Skip to main content

Modeling, validation and verification of three-dimensional cell-scaffold contacts from terabyte-sized images

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Modeling, validation and verification of three-dimensional cell-scaffold contacts from terabyte-sized images
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1928-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Bajcsy, Soweon Yoon, Stephen J. Florczyk, Nathan A. Hotaling, Mylene Simon, Piotr M. Szczypinski, Nicholas J. Schaub, Carl G. Simon, Mary Brady, Ram D. Sriram

Abstract

Cell-scaffold contact measurements are derived from pairs of co-registered volumetric fluorescent confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) images (z-stacks) of stained cells and three types of scaffolds (i.e., spun coat, large microfiber, and medium microfiber). Our analysis of the acquired terabyte-sized collection is motivated by the need to understand the nature of the shape dimensionality (1D vs 2D vs 3D) of cell-scaffold interactions relevant to tissue engineers that grow cells on biomaterial scaffolds. We designed five statistical and three geometrical contact models, and then down-selected them to one from each category using a validation approach based on physically orthogonal measurements to CLSM. The two selected models were applied to 414 z-stacks with three scaffold types and all contact results were visually verified. A planar geometrical model for the spun coat scaffold type was validated from atomic force microscopy images by computing surface roughness of 52.35 nm ±31.76 nm which was 2 to 8 times smaller than the CLSM resolution. A cylindrical model for fiber scaffolds was validated from multi-view 2D scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images. The fiber scaffold segmentation error was assessed by comparing fiber diameters from SEM and CLSM to be between 0.46% to 3.8% of the SEM reference values. For contact verification, we constructed a web-based visual verification system with 414 pairs of images with cells and their segmentation results, and with 4968 movies with animated cell, scaffold, and contact overlays. Based on visual verification by three experts, we report the accuracy of cell segmentation to be 96.4% with 94.3% precision, and the accuracy of cell-scaffold contact for a statistical model to be 62.6% with 76.7% precision and for a geometrical model to be 93.5% with 87.6% precision. The novelty of our approach lies in (1) representing cell-scaffold contact sites with statistical intensity and geometrical shape models, (2) designing a methodology for validating 3D geometrical contact models and (3) devising a mechanism for visual verification of hundreds of 3D measurements. The raw and processed data are publicly available from https://isg.nist.gov/deepzoomweb/data/ together with the web -based verification system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Engineering 9 16%
Computer Science 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,163,747
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#552
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,003
of 441,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#9
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.