Cited by 5Cell Image Analysis TechniquesAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Anomaly detection for high-content image-based phenotypic cell profiling

Open access
Shpigler, Alon, Kolet, Naor, Golan, Shahar, Weisbart, Erin, Zaritsky, Assaf·2025·Cell Systems

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

High-content image-based phenotypic profiling combines automated microscopy and analysis to identify phenotypic alterations in cell morphology and provide insight into the cell's physiological state. Classical representations of the phenotypic profile cannot capture the full underlying complexity in cell organization, while recent weakly supervised machine-learning-based representation-learning methods are hard to biologically interpret. We used the abundance of control wells to learn the in-distribution of control experiments and used it to formulate a self-supervised reconstruction anomaly-based representation that encodes the intricate morphological inter-feature dependencies while preserving the representation interpretability. The performance of our anomaly-based representations was evaluated for downstream tasks with respect to two classical representations across four public Cell Painting datasets. Anomaly-based representations improved reproducibility and mechanism of action classification and complemented classical representations. Unsupervised explainability of autoencoder-based anomalies identified specific inter-feature dependencies causing anomalies. The general concept of anomaly-based representations can be adapted to other applications in cell biology. A record of this paper's transparent peer review process is included in the supplemental information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cels.2025.101429

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Shpigler, A., Kolet, N., Golan, S., Weisbart, E., & Zaritsky, A.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Jerusalem College of Technology (IL)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Zaritsky, Assaf
Venue
Cell Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
101429
ISSN
2405-4712 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415668568
Cited by
5
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Israel Science Foundation (2516/21)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P41 GM135019)
  • Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology
  • Ministry of Science and Technology, Israel
  • Delta
  • Wellcome Leap
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
anomaly detection, high-content imaging, phenotypic profiling, cell morphology, Cell Painting, self-supervised reconstruction, interpretability, representation learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review