Cited by 89Cell Image Analysis TechniquesMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications

SuRVoS: Super-Region Volume Segmentation workbench

Open access
Luengo, Imanol, Darrow, Michele C., Spink, Matthew C., Sun, Ying, Dai, Wei, He, Cynthia Y., Chiu, Wah, Pridmore, Tony +4 more·2017·Journal of Structural Biology

Abstract

Segmentation of biological volumes is a crucial step needed to fully analyse their scientific content. Not having access to convenient tools with which to segment or annotate the data means many biological volumes remain under-utilised. Automatic segmentation of biological volumes is still a very challenging research field, and current methods usually require a large amount of manually-produced training data to deliver a high-quality segmentation. However, the complex appearance of cellular features and the high variance from one sample to another, along with the time-consuming work of manually labelling complete volumes, makes the required training data very scarce or non-existent. Thus, fully automatic approaches are often infeasible for many practical applications. With the aim of unifying the segmentation power of automatic approaches with the user expertise and ability to manually annotate biological samples, we present a new workbench named SuRVoS (Super-Region Volume Segmentation). Within this software, a volume to be segmented is first partitioned into hierarchical segmentation layers (named Super-Regions) and is then interactively segmented with the user's knowledge input in the form of training annotations. SuRVoS first learns from and then extends user inputs to the rest of the volume, while using Super-Regions for quicker and easier segmentation than when using a voxel grid. These benefits are especially noticeable on noisy, low-dose, biological datasets.

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.jsb.2017.02.007

Cites

54 of 54 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning methods for interactive segmentation can achieve higher segmentation accuracy with fewer user interactions, but are limited by hand-crafted features that depend on the user's experience.

    “Machine learning methods [6], [37], [38] have been proposed to learn from user interactions. They can achieve higher segmentation accuracy with fewer user interactions. However, they are limited by hand-crafted features that depend on the user's experience.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luengo, I., Darrow, M. C., Spink, M. C., Sun, Y., Dai, W., He, C. Y., Chiu, W., Pridmore, T., Ashton, A. W., Duke, E. M. H., Basham, M., & French, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Diamond Light Source (GB)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Basham, Mark
Venue
Journal of Structural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
198
Issue
1
Pages
43-53
ISSN
1047-8477 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2592107721
Cited by
89
References
54
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Structural Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P41GM103832, P01NS092525)
  • Diamond Light Source
  • National University of Singapore
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Advanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
volume segmentation, hierarchical segmentation, interactive segmentation, user annotation, limited training data, low-dose electron microscopy, noisy images
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Software, Datasets as Topic, Data Curation

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