Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative Comparison of Spot Detection Methods in Fluorescence Microscopy

Smal, I., Loog, M., Niessen, W., Meijering, E.·2010·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of biological image data generally involves the detection of many subresolution spots. Especially in live cell imaging, for which fluorescence microscopy is often used, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can be extremely low, making automated spot detection a very challenging task. In the past, many methods have been proposed to perform this task, but a thorough quantitative evaluation and comparison of these methods is lacking in the literature. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of the most frequently used detection methods for this purpose. These include seven unsupervised and two supervised methods. We perform experiments on synthetic images of three different types, for which the ground truth was available, as well as on real image data sets acquired for two different biological studies, for which we obtained expert manual annotations to compare with. The results from both types of experiments suggest that for very low SNRs ( approximately 2), the supervised (machine learning) methods perform best overall. Of the unsupervised methods, the detectors based on the so-called h -dome transform from mathematical morphology or the multiscale variance-stabilizing transform perform comparably, and have the advantage that they do not require a cumbersome learning stage. At high SNRs ( > 5), the difference in performance of all considered detectors becomes negligible.

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 · 10.1109/tmi.2009.2025127

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Smal, I., Loog, M., Niessen, W., & Meijering, E.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
2010-02
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
282-301
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
OpenAlex
W2168237413
Cited by
255
References
4
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Quantitative Comparison of Spot Detection Methods in Fluorescence Microscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2009.2025127
The paper
Smal, I., Loog, M., Niessen, W., & Meijering, E. (2010). Quantitative Comparison of Spot Detection Methods in Fluorescence Microscopy. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2009.2025127

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.