Uni-AIMS: AI-Powered Microscopy Image Analysis

Guolin Ke; Haoyi Tao; Jiankun Wang; Linfeng Zhang; Nan Wang; Peng Jin; Shengyu Li; Xiaochen Cai; Xi Fang; Yanhui Hong

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 8 references

Uni-AIMS: AI-Powered Microscopy Image Analysis

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A flow-based segmentation model, Uni-AIMS, outperforms established baselines on dense electron microscopy images and automatically reads scale bars with reported 100% unit/value accuracy and sub-pixel endpoint error.

desk verdict Solid dataset and practical engineering, but the evaluation is too self-contained to support the strong generalization claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06918 v2 pith:LE5RASDZ submitted 2025-05-11 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Yanhui Hong , Nan Wang , Zhiyi Xia , Haoyi Tao , Xi Fang , Yiming Li , Jiankun Wang , Peng Jin

show 6 more authors

Xiaochen Cai Shengyu Li Ziqi Chen Zezhong Zhang Guolin Ke Linfeng Zhang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG

keywords microscopyimageanalysisinstancesegmentationflowfieldpredictionscalebarrecognitionelectrondataenginesyntheticgenerationautomatedquantitative

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a single flow-based instance segmentation model, Uni-AIMS, can reliably separate and measure the many overlapping, multi-scale objects in electron microscopy images, and that the same system can read the scale bars printed on those images with high accuracy. The authors build an annotated dataset of 5,091 electron microscopy images with about three million mask instances (UniEM-3M), generated through a data engine that combines human annotation, model-assisted pre-labeling, and diffusion-model-based synthetic data. On the 963-image test split, Uni-AIMS with a SAM-ViT-base backbone reaches mask mAP of 0.824 on sparse images and 0.787 on dense images, surpassing the flow-based baselines Cellpose-SAM and CellViT. On 111 real microscopy images, the scale bar pipeline achieves 100% recognition of units and values and a mean absolute endpoint error of 0.63 pixels. If these results generalize, automated quantitative microscopy analysis—size, count, density, and shape—becomes practical across materials and battery research.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is flow-based instance segmentation with modified Euler integration. The network predicts, for every foreground pixel, a 2D flow vector pointing toward the center of the instance containing that pixel; applying modified Euler integration to this flow field produces pixel trajectories that converge on distinct centers, and the algorithm groups pixels by convergence basin. Local geometry maps (boundary gradients and object skeletons) guide the flow, allowing the model to split thousands of touching or overlapping instances regardless of size. This post-processing is CUDA-accelerated. The scale bar pipeline is a separate mechanism: YOLOv8m detects candidate scale bars and text regions, a local-threshold plus peak-detection step localizes bar endpoints, and PP-OCR with regular-expression parsing extracts the physical value and unit, which are matched to the nearest bar by spatial proximity.

What would settle it

Release or apply the Uni-AIMS model and the Table 1 baselines, all tuned with the same budget, on an independent external set of SEM, TEM, and STEM images with ground-truth masks from several laboratories; if Uni-AIMS does not beat Cellpose-SAM and CellViT on both sparse and dense subsets, the superiority claim fails. For scale bars, run the pipeline on images from manufacturers and styles absent from the training set; if unit or value recognition falls below 100 percent or the mean absolute endpoint error exceeds about one pixel, the claimed robustness fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that flow-field prediction—learning a 2D directional vector from each pixel toward the center of its instance—is the right inductive bias for densely packed electron microscopy images. The paper reports that Uni-AIMS, using a SAM-ViT-base vision encoder and a multi-head decoder that outputs flow fields and geometric maps, achieves $\mathrm{mAP@0.5}$ of 0.824 on the sparse subdataset (fewer than 100 instances per image) and 0.787 on the dense subdataset, with panoptic quality $\mathrm{PQ@0.5}$ of 0.720 and 0.703 respectively. These numbers exceed the reported results of Cellpose-SAM (0.605/0.633 sparse, 0.760/0.700 dense) and CellViT (0.589/0.573, 0.701/0.604) on the same split. The paper also reports that the scale bar recognition module detects bar and text regions with YOLOv8m, localizes endpoints by edge and peak analysis, and parses text with PP-OCR, achieving 100% unit and value accuracy and 0.63-pixel mean absolute error on a 111-image test set. The conclusion the authors draw is that a practical, generalizable automated analysis platform for microscopy images can be built from these components.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 963-image test split of UniEM-3M, assembled from the same sources and annotation workflow as the training data, represents the real microscopy images the system will encounter in practice—and that the 111 images used to test scale bar reading were not selected in a way that inflates accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the paper's reported numbers, automated analysis can replace manual measurement for particle diameter, count, density, and shape statistics in SEM and TEM images.
Dense microscopy scenes with thousands of touching instances are better handled by flow-based grouping than by anchor-based or mask-transformer baselines.
Because the model architecture is not tied to specific sample types, the same pipeline can be applied to NCM precursors, LiF microspheres, fibers, pores, and other microstructures.
Readable scale bars mean pixel measurements convert automatically to physical units, removing a manual step in quantitative workflows.
The data engine can bootstrap labeled data for new material types from a few annotated images using diffusion-based synthetic generation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the reported gains hold on external, independently annotated datasets, flow-based segmentation is likely to become the default for materials microscopy, mirroring its adoption in cell biology.
The scale bar module could be extended to handle multiple scale bars per image, rotated or curved bars, and legends with ambiguous units; a test on such images would show how far the 100% accuracy claim extends.
The synthetic-data recipe (Mask-LoRA to generate masks, ControlNet conditioned on masks to produce images) suggests a testable protocol for any imaging domain with scarce labels: the same pipeline could generate paired data for CT, MRI, or optical microscopy.
The near-exact scale bar length errors reported (0.63 pixels) suggest that endpoint localization may be operating at the resolution limit of the images; quantifying this against human annotator variability would strengthen the claim.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things seem worth knowing up front. The UniEM-3M dataset—5,091 images, roughly three million instances—is a real asset for anyone working on particle/pore segmentation, and the scale-bar reading pipeline is a practical piece of engineering that goes beyond threshold-based hacks. The segmentation model itself is a flow-field variant in the Cellpose/HoverNet family, with a reasonably clear CUDA implementation for the density regime they target. Credit is due for shipping an online application and for the human-in-the-loop annotation infrastructure that produced the dataset.

That said, the paper overclaims on evidence. The headline numbers in Table 1 are measured on a held-out split of the same self-assembled dataset; that is not disqualifying by itself, but the gap over Cellpose-SAM/CellViT would carry a lot more weight if at least one external benchmark or independent test set were included. The baseline table has holes—Mask R-CNN, Cascade R-CNN, HTC, YOLACT, Mask2Former are absent in the dense regime, so it is hard to call the comparison fair across methods. There are no error bars or repeated run statistics, and the AP definition is the bioimage-style one, so the numbers are not directly comparable to COCO-style results. The scale bar evaluation is on 111 self-selected images; 100% accuracy and a 0.63 px MAE is plausible but needs a bigger, more diverse sample. And Table 3 contains an impossible percentile ordering for Sample B (D10 > D50), which suggests a data-entry error or a mislabel; that has to be corrected.

The reader's stress test says external validation is the missing link, and I think that is exactly right. The generalization claims in the abstract and Section 6 are stronger than the evidence. The model may well be good—the dataset diversity and the flow-field approach support that—but the paper does not demonstrate it on data the authors did not curate.

Who is this for? Researchers in materials microscopy who need a ready-made tool and a training set; less valuable for someone looking for algorithmic novelty. I would send it to peer review, but with major revision expected: complete the baseline table, add variance estimates, correct Table 3, release checkpoints, and ideally evaluate on at least one external dataset. The core engineering and dataset are real; the current write-up just needs to match the evidence.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents Uni-AIMS, an end-to-end system for microscopy image analysis. It introduces a web-based data engine, a 5,091-image / ~3M-instance dataset UniEM-3M (described in a companion paper by wang et al., 2025), diffusion-model-based synthetic data generation, a flow-based instance segmentation model built on a SAM-ViT-base encoder, and a YOLOv8/PaddleOCR scale-bar recognition module. The evaluation on a 963-image test split reports mAP@0.5 of 0.824 and 0.787 on sparse and dense subsets, with PQ@0.5 of 0.720 and 0.703, outperforming Cellpose-SAM and CellViT. Scale-bar recognition on 111 real microscopy images is reported at 100% unit/value accuracy with a mean absolute error of 0.63 pixels. Two battery-materials case studies (NCM precursor particles and LiF microspheres) illustrate the platform's practical use.

Significance. If the reported results transfer beyond the authors' own data, Uni-AIMS would be a practically valuable contribution: automated instance segmentation of dense, multi-scale electron microscopy images plus reliable scale-bar reading would reduce a substantial manual-analysis bottleneck in materials characterization. Concrete strengths include the release of a large annotated dataset in a companion paper, an accessible online platform, a human-in-the-loop data engine with expert QC, and CUDA-optimized pixel-dynamics post-processing. The significance is, however, conditional: the headline performance numbers are measured exclusively on a self-constructed, self-split dataset, and the baseline comparisons are not fully auditable. The central generalization claim therefore needs external validation before the results can be accepted at face value.

major comments (5)

[§3.3, §4.2.3, Table 1] The central performance claim is evaluated only on the 963-image test split of UniEM-3M, a dataset collected, annotated, and split within the same project (Section 3.3 and companion paper wang et al., 2025). The abstract and conclusion claim 'scalability and generalizability across multiple application domains,' but no independently collected test set or standard public benchmark is used. The statement in Section 4.2.3 that all compared methods were 'carefully tuned' is not accompanied by hyperparameters, training protocols, or code, so the reader cannot rule out tuning asymmetry as the source of the reported margin. Please add evaluation on external public benchmarks not used in training, and release evaluation code and per-method tuning details.
[Table 1, §4.2.3] The dense-regime comparison is incomplete: Mask R-CNN, Cascade R-CNN, HTC, YOLACT, and Mask2Former are shown with dashes in the dense columns, so the paper's claim that anchor-based and transformer-based methods 'suffer degradation under ultra-dense microscopy scenes' is not directly demonstrated by Table 1. No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-seed results are provided. In addition, the AP definition in the footnote (|TP|/(|TP|+|FP|+|FN|)) is not COCO-style average precision; reporting this custom metric under the name mAP makes the absolute numbers non-comparable with prior literature. Please complete the dense-regime baselines, report standard mAP and precision/recall, and include variance estimates.
[§4.3.5, Table 2, Figure 7] The scale-bar evaluation rests on a small, author-selected test set of 111 real images. The selection criteria are not described, no error bars or per-style/per-manufacturer breakdowns are given, and a 100% accuracy on both units and values is reported without any failure-case analysis. The text around Figure 7 reports a mean absolute error of 0.3% and states that more than 50% of predictions are exactly correct, which is not reconciled with the 0.63-pixel mean absolute error in Table 2. Please document the test-set composition, report the full error distribution, and evaluate on an independently collected set of scale-bar images.
[Table 3] The LiF microsphere statistics contain an impossible percentile ordering: for Electrolyte Sample B, D10 = 0.08598 µm while D50 = 0.01325 µm. Since D10 is the 10th percentile and D50 is the median, D10 cannot exceed D50. This indicates an error in percentile calculation, transcription, or sorting, and it undermines the quantitative conclusions of the LiF case study until corrected. The authors should verify all rows of Table 3 and re-run the statistical analysis.
[§4.2, Figure 5] The technical contribution of the proposed segmentation model is not isolated by ablation. The method combines a vision encoder with a multi-head decoder predicting flow fields, topography, and local geometry, but there are no experiments showing which components are responsible for the improvement over Cellpose-SAM or CellViT, nor is there a comparison against a plain flow-based model with the same encoder/backbone. Please add ablations and a fuller description of the training and inference details so that the architectural claims can be assessed independently of the data-engine contributions.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] The phrase 'A online application' should be 'An online application.'
[References] The citation 'wang et al., 2025' should be capitalized as 'Wang et al., 2025' for consistency with the reference style.
[§3.2] The terms 'Image-LoRA' and 'Mask-LoRA' are introduced before they are formally defined; please provide concise definitions when they first appear.
[§4.3.5, Figure 7] The caption and text for Figure 7 should be expanded to explain which statistic corresponds to '0.63 pixels' in Table 2 and which corresponds to '0.3%' in the text, since both are described as mean absolute error.
[§5.3] The statement that image processing 'returns results within a few seconds' should be qualified with image size and hardware, since Section 4.2.2 reports about 80 seconds for an 8K×8K image.
[§6.2] The text 'Figures 10 show' should read 'Figure 10 shows'; the grammatical error appears in the application subsection.
[§7] The future-work section contains detailed implementation plans (e.g., <10 ms per 1K image for FIB, RESTful APIs, ISO/GBT compliance) that read more like a roadmap than a conclusion; consider shortening or moving to a supplementary document.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; reported numbers come from held-out evaluations, and the same-group dataset citation is a data-provenance self-reference, not a derivation input.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical measurements on held-out splits rather than quantities that reduce to their inputs by construction. In Section 4.2.3, Table 1 reports mAP and PQ obtained by applying the trained model to a 963-image test split of UniEM-3M, with the training and test sets explicitly split in Section 3.3; no parameter is fitted to the reported outcome. The scale-bar claims in Section 4.3.5 are similarly evaluated on a separately constructed 111-image test set, with recognition accuracy and pixel errors measured against ground truth. The model architecture, data engine, and evaluation protocol are all described independently of the reported numbers. The only self-referential elements are citations to same-group works: the UniEM-3M dataset is 'released and described in detail in our work (wang et al., 2025)', and the platform is cited as 'Uni-AIMS (Yanhui et al., 2024)'. These are provenance citations to publicly released artifacts, not load-bearing derivations: the dataset is an external, checkable resource, and the platform is an online service. The evaluation being conducted entirely on in-distribution, self-built data is a legitimate external-validity and generalization concern, but it is not an instance of a prediction being equivalent to its input by definition, fitted input being renamed as prediction, or a conclusion being forced by a self-citation chain. Therefore the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on the correctness of the UniEM-3M annotations, the validity of synthetic training data, and the representativeness of the authors' test split. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

sparse/dense split threshold = 100 instances
Section 4.2.3 divides the dataset at 100 instances per image; the choice affects which images populate the sparse and dense subdatasets in Table 1.
text confidence threshold = 0.15
Section 4.3.4 filters recognized text candidates using a confidence threshold of 0.15; the value is chosen by hand and affects scale bar reading accuracy.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Human expert annotations in UniEM-3M are correct ground truth.
Section 3.1 describes multi-stage review by annotators and experts, but no inter-annotator agreement or external validation is reported; all performance numbers assume these labels are correct.
domain assumption Synthetic images generated by diffusion models are distributionally valid training data for real microscopy.
Section 3.2 uses Image-LoRA, Mask-LoRA, and ControlNet to synthesize training pairs; the paper does not quantify the domain gap between synthetic and real EM images.
domain assumption The test split (963 images) is an independent, representative sample of the microscopy image distribution.
Section 3.3 describes a random split of the authors' own assembled dataset; no external validation set is used, so generalization to other labs' images is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uni-AIMS: AI-Powered Microscopy Image Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LE5RASDZ

@misc{pith2026250506918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uni-AIMS: AI-Powered Microscopy Image Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LE5RASDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06918}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a systematic solution for the intelligent recognition and automatic analysis of microscopy images. We developed a data engine that generates high-quality annotated datasets through a combination of the collection of diverse microscopy images from experiments, synthetic data generation and a human-in-the-loop annotation process. To address the unique challenges of microscopy images, we propose a segmentation model capable of robustly detecting both small and large objects. The model effectively identifies and separates thousands of closely situated targets, even in cluttered visual environments. Furthermore, our solution supports the precise automatic recognition of image scale bars, an essential feature in quantitative microscopic analysis. Building upon these components, we have constructed a comprehensive intelligent analysis platform and validated its effectiveness and practicality in real-world applications. This study not only advances automatic recognition in microscopy imaging but also ensures scalability and generalizability across multiple application domains, offering a powerful tool for automated microscopic analysis in interdisciplinary research. A online application is made available for researchers to access and evaluate the proposed automated analysis service.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06918 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The proposed microscopy image analysis framework. On the left, microscopy images are acquired from various sources and labeled via a humanin-the-loop approach. In the middle, the labeled data undergoes data augmentation to train the Uni-AIMS foundation model for feature extraction. Below, different analysis tasks and their industry applications are showcased. On the right, our intelligent analysis platform automati… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The overall workflow of Uni-AIMS. The results of scale bar detection and instance segmentation are combined to produce statistical analysis. If algorithms give incorrect results, users can correct them using visualization and interactive tools, and recalculate statistics. variation. StarDist (Schmidt et al., 2018) and its extension CPP-Net ( S. Chen et al., 2023), although often grouped into center-based approaches,… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The overview of our instance segmentation algorithm. The input images are encoded by a common vision encoder to patched image embeddings. The embeddings are optionally enhanced with visual and text prompt tokens and sent into a multi-head decoder to get geometry inform…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Recognition results of different style scale bars in the test dataset. The red rectangle indicates the location of the scale bar identified by the model. The green rectangle represents the text box corresponding to the scale bar value and unit identified [PITH_FULL_IM…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Error between recognized and ground truth scale bar lengths across test dataset. • Back-end: FastAPI (Ramírez, 2018) is selected for data processing and interface development, offering high performance and ease of development and debugging, allowing for rapid respons…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The screenshots of key functionalities of our microscopy image intelligent analysis platform. It includes: (a) interface for creating analysis tasks; (b) the visualization panel of the recognition result; (c) the filtering function to focus on specific data features; (…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The automatic identification results of LiF microspheres of the SEM images of four different electrolytes by Uni-AIMS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The platform-generated analysis of two NCM precursor samples. with performance. Figures 10 show the automatic identification results of LiF microspheres of the SEM images of four different electrolytes by Uni-AIMS. It can be seen from the images that Uni-AIMS can compr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Segment anything for microscopy

Ant Group (2016). Ant Design: A design system for enterprise-level products . https: //ant.design. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Archit, Anwai et al. (2025). “Segment anything for microscopy”. In: Nature Methods, pp. 1–13. Armand, Michel and J-M Tarascon (2008). “Building better batteries”. In: nature 451.7179, pp. 652–657. Aversa, Rossella et al. (2018). “The fi...

work page 2016
[2]

Co-precipitation of high-nickel NCM precursor using Taylor-Couette reactor and its characteristics in lithium-ion battery

url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597- 024- 04159-2. Lee, Suhyun et al. (2022). “Co-precipitation of high-nickel NCM precursor using Taylor-Couette reactor and its characteristics in lithium-ion battery”. In: Solid State Ionics 386, p. 116042. Liu, Ze et al. (2021). “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows”. In: Proceedings o...

doi:10.1038/s41597- 2022
[3]

Machine vision-driven au- tomatic recognition of particle size and morphology in SEM images

Jocher, Glenn, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu (2023). Ultralytics YOLOv8 . Ver- sion 8.0.0. url: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics. Kim, Hyojin, Jinkyu Han, and T. Yong-Jin Han (2020). “Machine vision-driven au- tomatic recognition of particle size and morphology in SEM images”. In: Nanoscale 12.37, pp. 19461–19469. doi: 10.1039/D0NR04140H. Kirill...

arXiv 2023
[7]

ImageDataExtractor: a tool to extract and quantify data from microscopy images

url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0403-1 . MongoDB Inc. (2009). MongoDB: The Developer Data Platform . https : / / www . mongodb.com. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Mukaddem, KT et al. (2019). “ImageDataExtractor: a tool to extract and quantify data from microscopy images”. In: Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60.5, pp. 2492–2509. Murphy, Douglas...

arXiv 2009
[59]

ImageJ for microscopy

doi: 10 . 1038/s41524-022-00756-5 . Collins, Tom J. (2007). “ImageJ for microscopy”. In: Biotechniques 43.sup1, S25–S30. doi: 10.2144/000112517. Danielsson, P.E. and O. Seger (1990). “Generalized and Separable Sobel Operators”. In: Machine vision for three-dimensional scenes. Ed. by Herbert Freeman. Academic Press, pp. 417–438. Dosovitskiy, Alexey et al. ...

arXiv 2007
[273]

Automatic quantification and classification of microplastics in scanning electron micrographs via deep learning

doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_30 . Shi, B. et al. (June 2022). “Automatic quantification and classification of microplastics in scanning electron micrographs via deep learning”. In:Science of The Total Environ- ment 825, p. 153903. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153903. Stringer, Carsen et al. (2021). “Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segment...

work page arXiv 2021
[654]

Deep learning for cellular image analysis

Meta Platforms, Inc. (2013). React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces . https://reactjs.org. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Moen, E., D. Bannon, T. Kudo, et al. (2019). “Deep learning for cellular image analysis”. In: Nature Methods 16, pp. 1233–1246. doi: 10 . 1038 / s41592 - 019 - 0403 -

work page 2013
[4474]

Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural net- works

Wikipedia contributors (1976). Remote Procedure Call (RPC) . https : / / en . wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_procedure_call. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Wu, Yuxin et al. (2019). Detectron2. https : / / github . com / facebookresearch / detectron2. Xie, Saining et al. (2017). “Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural net- works”. In: Proceedings of the IEE...

work page 1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Segment anything for microscopy

Ant Group (2016). Ant Design: A design system for enterprise-level products . https: //ant.design. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Archit, Anwai et al. (2025). “Segment anything for microscopy”. In: Nature Methods, pp. 1–13. Armand, Michel and J-M Tarascon (2008). “Building better batteries”. In: nature 451.7179, pp. 652–657. Aversa, Rossella et al. (2018). “The fi...

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Co-precipitation of high-nickel NCM precursor using Taylor-Couette reactor and its characteristics in lithium-ion battery

url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597- 024- 04159-2. Lee, Suhyun et al. (2022). “Co-precipitation of high-nickel NCM precursor using Taylor-Couette reactor and its characteristics in lithium-ion battery”. In: Solid State Ionics 386, p. 116042. Liu, Ze et al. (2021). “Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows”. In: Proceedings o...

doi:10.1038/s41597- 2022

[3] [3]

Machine vision-driven au- tomatic recognition of particle size and morphology in SEM images

Jocher, Glenn, Ayush Chaurasia, and Jing Qiu (2023). Ultralytics YOLOv8 . Ver- sion 8.0.0. url: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics. Kim, Hyojin, Jinkyu Han, and T. Yong-Jin Han (2020). “Machine vision-driven au- tomatic recognition of particle size and morphology in SEM images”. In: Nanoscale 12.37, pp. 19461–19469. doi: 10.1039/D0NR04140H. Kirill...

arXiv 2023

[4] [7]

ImageDataExtractor: a tool to extract and quantify data from microscopy images

url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0403-1 . MongoDB Inc. (2009). MongoDB: The Developer Data Platform . https : / / www . mongodb.com. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Mukaddem, KT et al. (2019). “ImageDataExtractor: a tool to extract and quantify data from microscopy images”. In: Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60.5, pp. 2492–2509. Murphy, Douglas...

arXiv 2009

[5] [59]

ImageJ for microscopy

doi: 10 . 1038/s41524-022-00756-5 . Collins, Tom J. (2007). “ImageJ for microscopy”. In: Biotechniques 43.sup1, S25–S30. doi: 10.2144/000112517. Danielsson, P.E. and O. Seger (1990). “Generalized and Separable Sobel Operators”. In: Machine vision for three-dimensional scenes. Ed. by Herbert Freeman. Academic Press, pp. 417–438. Dosovitskiy, Alexey et al. ...

arXiv 2007

[6] [273]

Automatic quantification and classification of microplastics in scanning electron micrographs via deep learning

doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_30 . Shi, B. et al. (June 2022). “Automatic quantification and classification of microplastics in scanning electron micrographs via deep learning”. In:Science of The Total Environ- ment 825, p. 153903. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153903. Stringer, Carsen et al. (2021). “Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segment...

work page arXiv 2021

[7] [654]

Deep learning for cellular image analysis

Meta Platforms, Inc. (2013). React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces . https://reactjs.org. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Moen, E., D. Bannon, T. Kudo, et al. (2019). “Deep learning for cellular image analysis”. In: Nature Methods 16, pp. 1233–1246. doi: 10 . 1038 / s41592 - 019 - 0403 -

work page 2013

[8] [4474]

Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural net- works

Wikipedia contributors (1976). Remote Procedure Call (RPC) . https : / / en . wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_procedure_call. Accessed: 2025-04-25. Wu, Yuxin et al. (2019). Detectron2. https : / / github . com / facebookresearch / detectron2. Xie, Saining et al. (2017). “Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural net- works”. In: Proceedings of the IEE...

work page 1976