Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2302.07005

Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analysis

Christopher Schmied·Michael Nelson·Sergiy Avilov·Gert-Jan Bakker·Cristina Bertocchi·Johanna Bischof·Ulrike Boehm·Jan Brocher·Mariana Carvalho·Catalin Chiritescu·Jana Christopher·Beth Cimini·Eduardo Conde-Sousa·Michael Ebner·Rupert Ecker·Kevin Eliceiri·Julia Fernandez-Rodriguez·Nathalie Gaudreault·Laurent Gelman·David Grunwald·Tingting Gu·Nadia Halidi·Mathias Hammer·Matthew Hartley·Marie Held·Florian Jug·Varun Kapoor·Ayse Aslihan Koksoy·Judith Lacoste·Sylvia Le Dévédec·Sylvie Le Guyader·Penghuan Liu·Gabriel Martins·Aastha Mathur·Kota Miura·Paula Montero Llopis·Roland Nitschke·Alison North·Adam Parslow·Alex Payne-Dwyer·Laure Plantard·Ali Rizwan·Britta Schroth-Diez·Lucas Schütz·Ryan T. Scott·Arne Seitz·Olaf Selchow·Ved Sharma·Martin Spitaler·Sathya Srinivasan·Caterina Strambio De Castillia·Douglas Taatjes·Christian Tischer·Helena Klara Jambor
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However for scientists wishing to publish the obtained images and image analyses results, there are to date no unified guidelines. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and image analysis for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers, and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability, and for reporting image analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby heighten the quality of microscopy data is in publications.

Explore related subjects

q-bio.OT

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Christopher Schmied, Michael Nelson, Sergiy Avilov, Gert-Jan Bakker, Cristina Bertocchi, Johanna Bischof, Ulrike Boehm, Jan Brocher, Mariana Carvalho, Catalin Chiritescu, Jana Christopher, Beth Cimini, Eduardo Conde-Sousa, Michael Ebner, Rupert Ecker, Kevin Eliceiri, Julia Fernandez-Rodriguez, Nathalie Gaudreault, Laurent Gelman, David Grunwald, Tingting Gu, Nadia Halidi, Mathias Hammer, Matthew Hartley, Marie Held, Florian Jug, Varun Kapoor, Ayse Aslihan Koksoy, Judith Lacoste, Sylvia Le Dévédec, Sylvie Le Guyader, Penghuan Liu, Gabriel Martins, Aastha Mathur, Kota Miura, Paula Montero Llopis, Roland Nitschke, Alison North, Adam Parslow, Alex Payne-Dwyer, Laure Plantard, Ali Rizwan, Britta Schroth-Diez, Lucas Schütz, Ryan T. Scott, Arne Seitz, Olaf Selchow, Ved Sharma, Martin Spitaler, Sathya Srinivasan, Caterina Strambio De Castillia, Douglas Taatjes, Christian Tischer, Helena Klara Jambor. 2023-02-14. Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analysis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-023-01987-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MarkerScout: A Disease-Agnostic Machine Learning Framework for Biomarker Prediction from Multi-Scale Mechanistic Models

We demonstrate the framework on three infectious diseases derived from a companion mechanistic immune-simulation platform: SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A Virus, and Plasmodium falciparum. Each disease was evaluated across hospitalization and intensive care unit cohorts, yielding six cohorts in total. Best-pipeline cross-validated macro F1 ranged from 0.82 for IAV-HOSP to 0.99 for COV-ICU, and the framework produced tiered, direction-aware biomarker lists for each disease and phase. Interleukin-18 (IL-18) reached the strongest tier in both SARS-CoV-2 phases with consistent direction. When benchmarked against three separate, independently collected clinical ICU datasets, MarkerScout's top-ranked features outperformed 94.4% of randomly selected feature sets of equivalent size for SARS-CoV-2, with a weaker but directionally consistent advantage for Influenza A Virus (66.7%) and Plasmodium falciparum (60.7%).

q-bio.OT↗
arXiv2026

Enhancing Clinical Decision Support and Differential Diagnosis with Knowledge Graphs, and Retrieval Augmented Generation in Generative AI

Diagnostic error carries a burden, while unconstrained large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to hallucination and weak integration of quantitative laboratory dynamics. We developed a decision-support pipeline combining disease-specific biomarker correlation graphs, ordinary differential equations (ODEs), deep sequence classification, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). For 103 disease classes from a full blood count (FBC) repository, biomarker networks were used as coupling matrices to generate 30 trajectories per disease (3,090 total). A one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) network classified disease trajectories and six dynamical clusters. A constrained GPT-4o-mini RAG layer used a 19-pattern BMJ Best Practice/NICE corpus to generate differential diagnoses evaluated for diagnostic suitability, evidential grounding, and clinical plausibility. Across five random-seed runs, disease-level accuracy was $0.940 \pm 0.006$ for the CNN (95\% CI 0.933--0.948) and $0.852 \pm 0.019$ for the LSTM (95\% CI 0.828--0.875); the CNN advantage was 8.87 percentage points (95\% CI 6.47--11.27; $t(4)=10.26$, $p=5.1\times10^{-4}$; Hedges' $g=3.67$). Among 100 sampled RAG cases, 96 parsed successfully; evidence was cited in 97.9\%, the true diagnosis was mentioned in 71.9\%, and the composite score was 3.82/5 with a 47.9\% strict pass rate. The central finding was a decoupling between grounding and diagnostic correctness: classifier-correct versus classifier-wrong outputs differed in diagnostic suitability but not evidential grounding. Post-hoc analysis confirmed a 1.02-point diagnostic-score difference (Mann--Whitney $p=0.0024$; Hedges' $g=0.72$), whereas grounding differed by only $-0.02$ points ($p=0.839$; $g=-0.04$).

q-bio.OT↗
arXiv2026

Expanding the Human Ancestry Ontology to include under-represented populations and ethnicities for broader utility in annotations

Successful discovery, integration and reuse of data relies on the availability of rich, well-structured and machine-readable metadata to describe every aspect of the data, from sample sources to collection processes to experimental protocols. The use of standardised terminologies to express concepts in a harmonised fashion lies at the core of high-quality data annotation, increasing the FAIRness of the data, facilitating data integration and promoting reproducibility. Here, we describe the Human Ancestry Ontology (HANCESTRO), originally developed to improve standardised reporting of genetic ancestry genomic resources such as the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog and the Human Cell Atlas through high-level population descriptors, and more recently expanded to include diverse and previously under-represented populations in genomics and genetics research. HANCESTRO provides a framework for population descriptors that includes both ancestry based on the analysis of genetic information and self-reported ethnicity, which is based on social and cultural factors that don't necessarily align with genetic populations. By enabling the accurate and interoperable representation of population-related data, it promotes inclusive, representative and reproducible science.

q-bio.OT↗