Assessing the reproducibility of a bioimage analysis workflow characterising tissue flow in <i>Drosophila</i>

Reproducibility challenges in bioimage analysis are common. The proliferation of tools and workflows creates a complex ecosystem that is difficult to reproduce without deliberate, explicit reporting and support. We assess the reproducibility of Gehrels et al.(2023) as a representative bioimage analysis workflow. We do not evaluate the biological claims; instead, we examine the reproducibility of the bioimage analysis methods used and the implications for current peer-review practices in the field. Although some data were deposited in the BioImage Archive and code was available on GitHub, the materials were insufficient to completely reproduce the analysis. Moreover, the repository lacked the configuration to enable straightforward replication of the workflow or results. This case study highlighted how incomplete reporting can significantly hinder the reproduction of bioimage analysis workflows. Because scientific progress relies on verifiable replications, insufficiently reproducible results can erode confidence in the scientific record.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Microscopy
Published
2026-06-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.70125
Primary Topic
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing the reproducibility of a bioimage analysis workflow characterising tissue flow in Drosophila

Rocco D’Antuono, Libert Brice Tonfack, Cesar Augusto Valades‐Cruz, Mélodie Ambroset et al.
Journal of Microscopy
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
article

Assessing the reproducibility of a bioimage analysis workflow characterising tissue flow in Drosophila

Rocco D’Antuono, Libert Brice Tonfack, Cesar Augusto Valades‐Cruz, Mélodie Ambroset, Caterina Fuster‐Barceló
article en

Abstract

Reproducibility challenges in bioimage analysis are common. The proliferation of tools and workflows creates a complex ecosystem that is difficult to reproduce without deliberate, explicit reporting and support. We assess the reproducibility of Gehrels et al.(2023) as a representative bioimage analysis workflow. We do not evaluate the biological claims; instead, we examine the reproducibility of the bioimage analysis methods used and the implications for current peer-review practices in the field. Although some data were deposited in the BioImage Archive and code was available on GitHub, the materials were insufficient to completely reproduce the analysis. Moreover, the repository lacked the configuration to enable straightforward replication of the workflow or results. This case study highlighted how incomplete reporting can significantly hinder the reproduction of bioimage analysis workflows. Because scientific progress relies on verifiable replications, insufficiently reproducible results can erode confidence in the scientific record.

Journal of Microscopy
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Université de Yaoundé I (CM), Inserm (FR), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN), The Francis Crick Institute (GB), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Institute of Hydrobiology (CN), Biopolymères Interactions Assemblages (FR), Life Science Zurich (CH), University of Reading (GB), Nantes Université (FR)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Cell Image Analysis Techniques
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.