Quantitative benchmarking of nuclear segmentation algorithms in multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging for translational studies

Multiplexed imaging techniques require identifying different cell types in the tissue. To utilize their potential for cellular and molecular analysis, high throughput and accurate analytical approaches are needed in parsing vast amounts of data, particularly in clinical settings. Nuclear segmentation errors propagate in all downstream steps of cell phenotyping and single-cell spatial analyses. Here, we benchmark and compare the nuclear segmentation tools commonly used in multiplexed immunofluorescence data by evaluating their performance across 7 tissue types encompassing ~20,000 labeled nuclei from human tissue samples. Pre-trained deep learning models outperform classical nuclear segmentation algorithms. Overall, Mesmer is recommended as it exhibits the highest nuclear segmentation accuracy with 0.67 F1-score at an IoU threshold of 0.5 on our composite dataset. Pre-trained StarDist model is recommended in case of limited computational resources, providing ~12x run time improvement with CPU compute and ~4x improvement with the GPU compute over Mesmer, but it struggles in dense nuclear regions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Communications Biology
Published
2025-05-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-025-08184-8
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.90

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantitative benchmarking of nuclear segmentation algorithms in multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging for translational studies

Kimberly S. Smythe, Abishek Sankaranarayanan, Georgii Khachaturov, Shachi Mittal
3 citations
Communications Biology
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
4.90
article

Quantitative benchmarking of nuclear segmentation algorithms in multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging for translational studies

Kimberly S. Smythe, Abishek Sankaranarayanan, Georgii Khachaturov, Shachi Mittal
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Multiplexed imaging techniques require identifying different cell types in the tissue. To utilize their potential for cellular and molecular analysis, high throughput and accurate analytical approaches are needed in parsing vast amounts of data, particularly in clinical settings. Nuclear segmentation errors propagate in all downstream steps of cell phenotyping and single-cell spatial analyses. Here, we benchmark and compare the nuclear segmentation tools commonly used in multiplexed immunofluorescence data by evaluating their performance across 7 tissue types encompassing ~20,000 labeled nuclei from human tissue samples. Pre-trained deep learning models outperform classical nuclear segmentation algorithms. Overall, Mesmer is recommended as it exhibits the highest nuclear segmentation accuracy with 0.67 F1-score at an IoU threshold of 0.5 on our composite dataset. Pre-trained StarDist model is recommended in case of limited computational resources, providing ~12x run time improvement with CPU compute and ~4x improvement with the GPU compute over Mesmer, but it struggles in dense nuclear regions.

Communications BiologyVol. 8(1)
University of Washington (US), Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
University of Washington
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
4.90
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Quantitative benchmarking of nuclear segmentation algorithms in multiplexed immunofluorescence imaging for translational studies — Kimberly S. Smythe, Abishek Sankaranarayanan, et al. · Communications Biology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS