| Title |
Objective comparison of particle tracking methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.2808 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Chenouard, Ihor Smal, Fabrice de Chaumont, Martin Maška, Ivo F Sbalzarini, Yuanhao Gong, Janick Cardinale, Craig Carthel, Stefano Coraluppi, Mark Winter, Andrew R Cohen, William J Godinez, Karl Rohr, Yannis Kalaidzidis, Liang Liang, James Duncan, Hongying Shen, Yingke Xu, Klas E G Magnusson, Joakim Jaldén, Helen M Blau, Perrine Paul-Gilloteaux, Philippe Roudot, Charles Kervrann, François Waharte, Jean-Yves Tinevez, Spencer L Shorte, Joost Willemse, Katherine Celler, Gilles P van Wezel, Han-Wei Dan, Yuh-Show Tsai, Carlos Ortiz de Solórzano, Jean-Christophe Olivo-Marin, Erik Meijering |
| Abstract |
Particle tracking is of key importance for quantitative analysis of intracellular dynamic processes from time-lapse microscopy image data. Because manually detecting and following large numbers of individual particles is not feasible, automated computational methods have been developed for these tasks by many groups. Aiming to perform an objective comparison of methods, we gathered the community and organized an open competition in which participating teams applied their own methods independently to a commonly defined data set including diverse scenarios. Performance was assessed using commonly defined measures. Although no single method performed best across all scenarios, the results revealed clear differences between the various approaches, leading to notable practical conclusions for users and developers. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 61% |
| Scientists | 8 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 15 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | <1% |
| United States | 10 | <1% |
| France | 6 | <1% |
| Portugal | 4 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 4 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 4 | <1% |
| Argentina | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1307 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 415 | 30% |
| Researcher | 248 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 156 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 91 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 80 | 6% |
| Other | 191 | 14% |
| Unknown | 200 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 290 | 21% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 194 | 14% |
| Engineering | 187 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 155 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 89 | 6% |
| Other | 240 | 17% |
| Unknown | 226 | 16% |