4.7 Article

A benchmark for comparison of cell tracking algorithms

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 1609-1617

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu080

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy [DPI2012-38090-C03-02]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [302/12/G157]
  3. European Social Fund and the Czech Ministry of Education [1.07/2.3.00/30.0009]
  4. Swedish Research Council (VR) [621-2011-5884]
  5. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL096113]
  6. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine [RT1-01001-1]
  7. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [P205/12/P392]
  8. Charles University [UNCE 204022]
  9. BMBF projects ENGINE (NGFN+)
  10. FANCI (SysTec)
  11. Spain's Gov. projects (CDTI-AMIT) [TEC2010-21619-C04-03, TEC2011-28972-C02-02]
  12. European Development Funds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: Automatic tracking of cells in multidimensional time-lapse fluorescence microscopy is an important task in many biomedical applications. A novel framework for objective evaluation of cell tracking algorithms has been established under the auspices of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2013 Cell Tracking Challenge. In this article, we present the logistics, datasets, methods and results of the challenge and lay down the principles for future uses of this benchmark. Results: The main contributions of the challenge include the creation of a comprehensive video dataset repository and the definition of objective measures for comparison and ranking of the algorithms. With this benchmark, six algorithms covering a variety of segmentation and tracking paradigms have been compared and ranked based on their performance on both synthetic and real datasets. Given the diversity of the datasets, we do not declare a single winner of the challenge. Instead, we present and discuss the results for each individual dataset separately.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available