Detection of extremely rare dead cells in fluorescence microscopy images
Organizations: Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA · Department of Biomedical Engineering University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
Abstract
Dead cell detection in fluorescence microscopy is essential for phenotypic screening and drug efficacy assessment. However, automated identification remains challenging due to signal variability, optical artifacts, and colocalization ambiguities across multiple channels. Markers that define nuclear boundaries do not neatly coincide spatially or temporally with apoptotic markers. Furthermore, marker accumulation kinetics vary across individual cells and apoptosis stages, making universal thresholds unreliable. We present a systematic comparison of several computational approaches for detecting apoptotic cells in nucleus-stained specimens: (1) heuristic methods using intensity thresholds, distributions, correlations, and domain guidance; (2) classification using numerical features (Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost and LightGBM) and image features (ResNet-18 and EfficientNet-B0); and (3) anomaly detection, also using numerical features (Isolation Forest, one-class SVM and PCA reconstruction) and image features (convolutional autoencoders and Deep SVDD). Using a dataset of 258 images containing 65,527 cells/nuclei across multiple scenes with 243 manually annotated ground truth dead cells, we evaluate each method on metrics such as PR-AUC, Precision, Recall, F1-score, and macro-F1. Our results indicate that classification using image features (deep learning) and numerical features (traditional) achieved the best performance, with ResNet-18 and XGBoost significantly outperforming manually designed heuristics and anomaly detection methods. Our findings demonstrate that such biomedical problems remain highly challenging to solve even with the state-of-the-art computational and learning techniques. We aim to provide an effective decision-support tool to researchers while tackling such problems either fully-automatically or in a human-in-the-loop setting as an aide to domain scientists.
Figures & tables
| counts | ||
|---|---|---|
| (a) | images | 766 |
| (b) | total detected cell/nuclear masks | 112,011 |
| (c) | images with ground truth | 258 |
| (d) | masks in images with ground truth | 65,527 |
| (e) | dead cell labels | 330 |
| (f) | masks mapped to dead labels | 243 |
| Scope | Intensity Feature | Counts |
|---|---|---|
| Cell | mean | 3 |
| median | 3 | |
| maximum | 3 | |
| minimum | 3 | |
| coefficient of variation | 3 | |
| Image Patch | mean | 3 |
| Family | Method | Variant | PR-AUC | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Macro-F1 |
| Progressive Heuristics | Intensity Thresholding | percentile (99%) | n/a | 0.354 | 0.572 | 0.437 | 0.717 |
| distribution-based (bimodal) | n/a | 0.111 | 0.455 | 0.179 | 0.586 | ||
| distribution-based (z-score) | n/a | 0.156 | 0.782 | 0.260 | 0.626 | ||
| Adaptive Gap Split | size 10%, position 75% | n/a | 0.482 | 0.383 | 0.427 | 0.712 | |
| Colocalization-Aware Preprocessing | nuclear normalized | n/a | 0.317 | 0.601 | 0.415 | 0.706 | |
| Pearson Correlation | n/a | 0.478 | 0.222 | 0.303 | 0.651 |
Microscopy Image Analysis
Microscopy image analysis uses computational methods to detect, segment, track, reconstruct, and quantify structures in scientific images.
See all 195 papers