An objective comparison of cell-tracking algorithms
This analysis describes the results of three Cell Tracking Challenge editions for examining the performance of cell segmentation and tracking algorithms and provides practical feedback for users and developers. We present a combined report on the results of three editions of the Cell Tracking Challe...
Saved in:
Published in | Nature methods Vol. 14; no. 12; pp. 1141 - 1152 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
01.12.2017
Nature Publishing Group |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | This analysis describes the results of three Cell Tracking Challenge editions for examining the performance of cell segmentation and tracking algorithms and provides practical feedback for users and developers.
We present a combined report on the results of three editions of the Cell Tracking Challenge, an ongoing initiative aimed at promoting the development and objective evaluation of cell segmentation and tracking algorithms. With 21 participating algorithms and a data repository consisting of 13 data sets from various microscopy modalities, the challenge displays today's state-of-the-art methodology in the field. We analyzed the challenge results using performance measures for segmentation and tracking that rank all participating methods. We also analyzed the performance of all of the algorithms in terms of biological measures and practical usability. Although some methods scored high in all technical aspects, none obtained fully correct solutions. We found that methods that either take prior information into account using learning strategies or analyze cells in a global spatiotemporal video context performed better than other methods under the segmentation and tracking scenarios included in the challenge. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 These authors contributed equally to this work Current affiliation: DeepMind, London, UK Current affiliation: Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany Current affiliation: Definiens AG, Munich, Germany Current affiliation: Computer Vision Institute, College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China Current affiliation: National Heart Research Institute Singapore (NHRIS), National Heart Centre Singapore (NHCS), Singapore |
ISSN: | 1548-7091 1548-7105 1548-7105 |
DOI: | 10.1038/nmeth.4473 |