Deep machine learning-assisted multiphoton microscopy to reduce light exposure and expedite imaging
Authors:
Stephen McAleer,
Alex Fast,
Yuntian Xue,
Magdalene Seiler,
William Tang,
Mihaela Balu,
Pierre Baldi,
Andrew W. Browne
Abstract:
Two-photon excitation fluorescence (2PEF) allows imaging of tissue up to about one millimeter in thickness. Typically, reducing fluorescence excitation exposure reduces the quality of the image. However, using deep learning super resolution techniques, these low-resolution images can be converted to high-resolution images. This work explores improving human tissue imaging by applying deep learning…
▽ More
Two-photon excitation fluorescence (2PEF) allows imaging of tissue up to about one millimeter in thickness. Typically, reducing fluorescence excitation exposure reduces the quality of the image. However, using deep learning super resolution techniques, these low-resolution images can be converted to high-resolution images. This work explores improving human tissue imaging by applying deep learning to maximize image quality while reducing fluorescence excitation exposure. We analyze two methods: a method based on U-Net, and a patch-based regression method. Both methods are evaluated on a skin dataset and an eye dataset. The eye dataset includes 1200 paired high power and low power images of retinal organoids. The skin dataset contains multiple frames of each sample of human skin. High-resolution images were formed by averaging 70 frames for each sample and low-resolution images were formed by averaging the first 7 and 15 frames for each sample. The skin dataset includes 550 images for each of the resolution levels. We track two measures of performance for the two methods: mean squared error (MSE) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM). For the eye dataset, the patches method achieves an average MSE of 27,611 compared to 146,855 for the U-Net method, and an average SSIM of 0.636 compared to 0.607 for the U-Net method. For the skin dataset, the patches method achieves an average MSE of 3.768 compared to 4.032 for the U-Net method, and an average SSIM of 0.824 compared to 0.783 for the U-Net method. Despite better performance on image quality, the patches method is worse than the U-Net method when comparing the speed of prediction, taking 303 seconds to predict one image compared to less than one second for the U-Net method.
△ Less
Submitted 10 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
Automated data extraction of bar chart raster images
Authors:
Alex Carderas,
Ye Yuan,
Itamar Livnat,
Ryan Yanagihara,
Rosita Saul,
Gabrielle Montes De Oca,
Kai Zheng,
Andrew W. Browne
Abstract:
Objective: To develop software utilizing optical character recognition toward the automatic extraction of data from bar charts for meta-analysis. Methods: We utilized a multistep data extraction approach that included figure extraction, text detection, and image disassembly. PubMed Central papers that were processed in this manner included clinical trials regarding macular degeneration, a disease…
▽ More
Objective: To develop software utilizing optical character recognition toward the automatic extraction of data from bar charts for meta-analysis. Methods: We utilized a multistep data extraction approach that included figure extraction, text detection, and image disassembly. PubMed Central papers that were processed in this manner included clinical trials regarding macular degeneration, a disease causing blindness with a heavy disease burden and many clinical trials. Bar chart characteristics were extracted in both an automated and manual fashion. These two approaches were then compared for accuracy. These characteristics were then compared using a Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Based on Bland-Altman analysis, 91.8% of data points were within the limits of agreement. By comparing our automated data extraction with manual data extraction, automated data extraction yielded the following accuracies: X-axis labels 79.5%, Y-tick values 88.6%, Y-axis label 88.6%, Bar value <5% error 88.0%. Discussion: Based on our analysis, we achieved an agreement between automated data extraction and manual data extraction. A major source of error was the incorrect delineation of 7s as 2s by optical character recognition library. We also would benefit from adding redundancy checks in the form of a deep neural network to boost our bar detection accuracy. Further refinements to this method are justified to extract tabulated and line graph data to facilitate automated data gathering for meta-analysis.
△ Less
Submitted 8 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.
