Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2203.04107 v1 pith:WPKBIQR7 submitted 2022-03-07 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CVcs.LGq-bio.QM

Comparing representations of biological data learned with different AI paradigms, augmenting and cropping strategies

classification eess.IV cs.AIcs.CVcs.LGq-bio.QM
keywords learningaugmentingbiologicalcomparecroppingdifferentperformancestrategies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in computer vision and robotics enabled automated large-scale biological image analysis. Various machine learning approaches have been successfully applied to phenotypic profiling. However, it remains unclear how they compare in terms of biological feature extraction. In this study, we propose a simple CNN architecture and implement 4 different representation learning approaches. We train 16 deep learning setups on the 770k cancer cell images dataset under identical conditions, using different augmenting and cropping strategies. We compare the learned representations by evaluating multiple metrics for each of three downstream tasks: i) distance-based similarity analysis of known drugs, ii) classification of drugs versus controls, iii) clustering within cell lines. We also compare training times and memory usage. Among all tested setups, multi-crops and random augmentations generally improved performance across tasks, as expected. Strikingly, self-supervised (implicit contrastive learning) models showed competitive performance being up to 11 times faster to train. Self-supervised regularized learning required the most of memory and computation to deliver arguably the most informative features. We observe that no single combination of augmenting and cropping strategies consistently results in top performance across tasks and recommend prospective research directions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.