Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,197

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy

Open access
Weigert, Martin, Schmidt, Uwe, Boothe, Tobias, Müller, Andreas, Dibrov, Alexandr, Jain, Akanksha, Wilhelm, Benjamin, Schmidt, Deborah, Broaddus, Coleman, Culley, Siân, Rocha-Martins, Mauricio, Segovia-Miranda, Fabián, Norden, Caren, Henriques, Ricardo, Zerial, Marino, Solimena, Michele, Rink, Jochen, Tomancak, Pavel, Royer, Loic, Jug, Florian, Myers, Eugene W.·2018·Nature Methods

Abstract

Fluorescence microscopy is a key driver of discoveries in the life sciences, with observable phenomena being limited by the optics of the microscope, the chemistry of the fluorophores, and the maximum photon exposure tolerated by the sample. These limits necessitate trade-offs between imaging speed, spatial resolution, light exposure, and imaging depth. In this work we show how content-aware image restoration based on deep learning extends the range of biological phenomena observable by microscopy. We demonstrate on eight concrete examples how microscopy images can be restored even if 60-fold fewer photons are used during acquisition, how near isotropic resolution can be achieved with up to tenfold under-sampling along the axial direction, and how tubular and granular structures smaller than the diffraction limit can be resolved at 20-times-higher frame rates compared to state-of-the-art methods. All developed image restoration methods are freely available as open source software in Python, FIJI, and KNIME. Content-aware image restoration (CARE) uses deep learning to improve microscopy images. CARE bypasses the trade-offs between imaging speed, resolution, and maximal light exposure that limit fluorescence imaging to enable discovery.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41592-018-0216-7

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 1,197

Metadata

Authors
Weigert, M., Schmidt, U., Boothe, T., Müller, A., Dibrov, A., Jain, A., Wilhelm, B., Schmidt, D., Broaddus, C., Culley, S., Rocha-Martins, M., Segovia-Miranda, F., Norden, C., Henriques, R., Zerial, M., Solimena, M., Rink, J., Tomancak, P., Royer, L., Jug, F., & Myers, E. W.
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2018-11-26
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
1090-1097
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2950501364
Cited by
1,197
References
11
FWCI
48.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41592-018-0216-7
The paper
Weigert, M., Schmidt, U., Boothe, T., Müller, A., Dibrov, A., Jain, A., Wilhelm, B., Schmidt, D., Broaddus, C., Culley, S., Rocha-Martins, M., Segovia-Miranda, F., Norden, C., Henriques, R., Zerial, M., Solimena, M., Rink, J., Tomancak, P., Royer, L., . . . Myers, E. W. (2018). Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy. Nature Methods. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0216-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.