Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Infected cell detection failed - plateK12rep1_20200430_155932_313 - C02-0004 #66

Open
tischi opened this issue May 11, 2020 · 11 comments
Open
Labels

Comments

@tischi
Copy link
Collaborator

tischi commented May 11, 2020

{"plateName":"plateK12rep1_20200430_155932_313","siteName":"C02-0004","pixelLocation":[4580.848484848485,7714.909090909091,0.0],"analysisVersion":"fe4b2a54e8cc608bfd053557eacec69ecfb39923"}

@imagirom @constantinpape @metavibor

As suspected, the infected cell detection seemed to have failed in this plate.
There are many cells with bright virus staining that have not been identified.

Screenshot

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

@tischi can you find out if these cells are particularly small?
@imagirom has been thinking this might be one of the problems we have in the virus detection right now.
I am still cleaning up some things, and then I will also work on the infected cell detection a bit.

@tischi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tischi commented May 11, 2020

Does not look as if the cell size is special in the K12 plate:

> df %>% group_by(plate_name) %>% summarise(median(cell_size_median_infected, na.rm=T))
# A tibble: 8 x 2
  plate_name                   `median(cell_size_median_infected, na.rm = T)`
  <chr>                                                                 <dbl>
1 20200417_132123_311                                                   1654 
2 20200417_152052_943                                                   1629 
3 20200417_203228_156                                                   1722.
4 plate6rep2_wp0507_131032_010                                          1474.
5 plate9_2rep10506_163349_413                                           1332.
6 plate9rep10430_144438_974                                             1591.
7 plateK12rep10430_155932_313                                           1608.
8 PlateK19rep10506_095722_264                                           1589.
> df %>% group_by(plate_name) %>% summarise(median(cell_size_median_control, na.rm=T))
# A tibble: 8 x 2
  plate_name                   `median(cell_size_median_control, na.rm = T)`
  <chr>                                                                <dbl>
1 20200417_132123_311                                                  1646.
2 20200417_152052_943                                                  1652.
3 20200417_203228_156                                                  1644 
4 plate6rep2_wp0507_131032_010                                         1594.
5 plate9_2rep10506_163349_413                                          1431 
6 plate9rep10430_144438_974                                            1754 
7 plateK12rep10430_155932_313                                          1708.
8 PlateK19rep10506_095722_264                                          1682 

@tischi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tischi commented May 11, 2020

What algorithm are you guys using right now?
As discussed with @imagirom, I think measuring whether the cell is brighter in some sense than the background signal in the same image/well/plate is what I would do (after applying a tophat filter to the image to get rid of remaining flat-field imperfections).

@imagirom
Copy link
Contributor

Current algorithm: Exactly what you proposed in #17, with top-k statistic (before the last run this performed better than quantiles in grid-search)
I will try the tophat filter as preprocessing.

@constantinpape @tischi
I have a hypothesis about the apparently obviously missed infected cells: Could it be that they are classified as outliers? In that case they would show up as non-infected in the mask. Checking this is another reason the click-to-inspect-cell feature we discussed would be very useful.

@tischi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tischi commented May 11, 2020

Checking this is another reason the click-to-inspect-cell feature we discussed would be very useful.

working on it...

@metavibor
Copy link
Collaborator

can we have a mask that show outliers

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

can we have a mask that show outliers

very good point, I will add this to the image summary that we produce.

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

@constantinpape @tischi
I have a hypothesis about the apparently obviously missed infected cells: Could it be that they are classified as outliers? In that case they would show up as non-infected in the mask. Checking this is another reason the click-to-inspect-cell feature we discussed would be very useful.

Ok, I will add the outlier mask in a few minutes and then recompute it for all the plates in the sandbox folder.

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

I have added the outlier mask now and I am computing it for all the plates in the sandbox folder again.
I also made another small change: the cell segmentation edges are marked with value 2 in the mask images now; I think that makes it much easier to properly see the results.

@tischi @imagirom I will let you know once it's there.

@tischi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tischi commented May 11, 2020

@constantinpape
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, just wanted to let you know that it's all computed now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants