Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Terminal Insanity
Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance
908
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 02:00:19 -
[1] - Quote
Post all the really hard, or really strange samples you've seen so far... For Science!
Not sure whats going on in this one. Its like a couple of them exploded or something. This is your cells on drugs? http://i.imgur.com/dNKrZQ1.png
This one i got semi-right.. apparently it had 3 different classifications i needed to select, i only got the most obvious one. http://i.imgur.com/M9yq6FU.png
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2196
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 02:04:46 -
[2] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Post all the really hard, or really strange samples you've seen so far... For Science!Not sure whats going on in this one. Its like a couple of them exploded or something. This is your cells on drugs? http://i.imgur.com/dNKrZQ1.pngThis one i got semi-right.. apparently it had 3 different classifications i needed to select, i only got the most obvious one. http://i.imgur.com/M9yq6FU.png
First one I would call nucleoli, I guess. I saw another one that was almost devoid of green, including inside nuclei, EXCEPT on a few cells where the nucleus was completely shattered, and the shattered parts of the nucleus were entirely green. Didn't screencap it, though. :\
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Terminal Insanity
Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance
908
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 03:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
heres one that nobody seems sure of, look at the spread of those numbers! http://i.imgur.com/F2QMP1K.png
and heres one that doesnt seem to fit any description. Its probably not a Microtubule Organizing Center, since none of the red converges on it at all, and they are fairly solid dots, not diffuse. It might be a Centrosome but again, none of the red converges on it, and its kinda randomly placed in the red. It cant be an Aggresome, since its often not next to the nucleus, and is not diffuse. I marked it as 'abnormal sample' and chose Aggresome anyway since its the closest match i could find. http://i.imgur.com/R56dMoD.png
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
|
Neuntausend
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
748
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 04:06:55 -
[4] - Quote
Could you tell me in really simple words (goon level) what I am doing when I am comparing those things? Ideally using only these.
It's got something to do with protein, so, can we cure cancer by doing well? Or improve our diet? Grow some muscles? |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
107
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 04:22:43 -
[5] - Quote
"you are helping to do science" simple explanation or "you are helping to identify what structures are present in pretty pictures of really small things" simple explanation?
Basically, you are looking at pictures of stained human cells to identify patterns of protein distribution in them. The aim is to map all of the proteins in the human body to help understand health and disease. |
Sp3ktr3
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 04:57:50 -
[6] - Quote
It's nice to see some people actually trying to do this project properly. Based on the choice distributions I've seen so far, people are either just randomly picking things or deliberately picking the one that is the most absolutely wrong. A community full of trolls may not have been the best place for something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/dNKrZQ1.png Looks like fribrillar-center nucleoli.
http://i.imgur.com/tpulJhH.png I would call that one a plasma membrane. |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
109
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 05:17:28 -
[7] - Quote
Sp3ktr3 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tpulJhH.png I would call that one a plasma membrane.
The ones that are Red Cross/Green Outline on the results like that (or titled "Foreign cell sample") are ones that have been classified by researchers at HPA - player's haven't come to that consensus.
Ones that have been classified by players show you the percentages in the results and are the unknown samples.
|
Sp3ktr3
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 05:50:09 -
[8] - Quote
Helios Anduath wrote:Sp3ktr3 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tpulJhH.png I would call that one a plasma membrane. The ones that are Red Cross/Green Outline on the results like that (or titled "Foreign cell sample") are ones that have been classified by researchers at HPA - player's haven't come to that consensus. Ones that have been classified by players show you the percentages in the results and are the unknown samples.
Yes true. But it's entirely possible for researchers to misclassify things, especially when they're trying to do a lot of them at once. My specialty isn't biology, but based on the examples they gave that one definitely does look more like a plasma membrane. |
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 07:00:30 -
[9] - Quote
Am I missing something here?
https://i.gyazo.com/bc19dab4632c6ab7a48d22522b6b8381.png |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2196
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 07:16:18 -
[10] - Quote
Yeah, some of those are irksome.
This one is peeving me.
http://i.imgur.com/DVC5Tzr.png
Those are NOT vessicles.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 07:24:21 -
[11] - Quote
The first few days, the results are going to be all over the map because we have a little learning of our own to do.
A signature :o
|
Kali Starchaser
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 08:45:50 -
[12] - Quote
http://puu.sh/nBm3b/6e5306903d.jpg
I think I just got proof of a baby metroid.
Image ID #100089016 http://puu.sh/nBmgh/775724f363.jpg |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
80
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 09:01:19 -
[13] - Quote
I tryed to do it but i have no idea what i am doing. I read all the toturial and instructions but i always miss the correct answer.
|
Silvenin
Umbra Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 09:10:45 -
[14] - Quote
For some reason people seem to be afraid of the "unspecific" or "cell to cell variations" buttons like they bite or something.
If it's either of those, what you will see is votes literaly spread all across the board, quite evenly like they went with a totaly random selection because they could not identify...
Case and point.... here is a clear example of cell to cell variation https://i.gyazo.com/9f81eec9b881fd227c66b3878cb8b801.png |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3040
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 11:24:56 -
[15] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Heres one i was almost certain i was right, but apparently not. The staining was clearly outside of the red marker, uniform though the whole thing with no difference in the blue marker area, and with pointy protrusions extending out, like the Plasma Membrane, but it turned out to be Cytoplasm? Cytoplasm description says it should be uniform inside the cell, except in the blue marker, and i dont see any of these protrusions in any of the cytoplasm examples. http://i.imgur.com/tpulJhH.png Remember these are 3D images, so there can be green under the blue, which isn't 'In' the blue but part of the cell literally underneath. |
Daniel Ornulf
Grae Universe Enterprise EVIAN NATION
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 11:28:37 -
[16] - Quote
it was fun until people started picking the same "mainstream" patterns for every image rather than risk belonging to the minority |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 14:03:37 -
[17] - Quote
What a fun thread!
Some feedback on your difficult images from a researchers pov:
#1: First image shows fibrillar centers. You can tell because the green staining will overlap with the holes in the blue one. It's FC rather than nucleoli, as there are clusters of spots in each nucleoli (FC is a specific pattern of nucleolar staining, with a specific biological function).
The cells that look like they've exploded are actually cells that are undergoing mitosis = one cell becoming two. So what you see is the DNA (blue) all densed up, so the microtubules (red) can help separate the DNA equally into the two daughter cells. Not so common to see this in images, and soooo pretty imo :)
Second image: Difficult one, agree that the nucleoli is the most prominent staining (it's just really important to toggle all colors on/off).
#3: Hehe you're really finding difficult ones! I would say it's nucleoli, but I'm not sure whether it's "just" nucleoli, or whether it's fibrillar center. I don't think it's nuclear bodies because the green seem to overlap with the holes in the blue. It's not speckles because there are too few and not evenly spread out.
Second image: Tricky one! The spots are really dense and oversaturated. It might be some sort of vesicle or cytoplasmic body, but it could also be an artifact. Typical image where there's no obvious right or wrong.
#6: Totally agree with you on both! There might be a cytoplasmic staining together with the plasma membrane (those two can be really difficult to tell apart). Are you getting errors for choosing PM?
#9: Can't say for sure with both the blue and green turned on, but if looks like nucleus rather than nucleoplasm to me.
#10: You're right, it's mitochondria. I can sort of understand why they could be mistaken for vesicles though... but that thread like pattern in a part of the cell really gives it away.
#12: Ooooh, those were some ugly cells. I can tell from just looking at the morphology and size that those belong to one of the first few 1000 cell preps we did (to give some perspective, we've done >150.000 now & we've improved a lot). It's a really difficult one to distinguish, but I think it might be intermediate filaments. It could also be "just" cytoplasm. My reason for thinking of intermediate filaments is that the green is a bit more dense next to the nucleus, and it's kinda like a cotton pad that you've ripped apart (at work we usually go like "uuuh so it's not golgi, cytoplasm or mitochondria... it must be int fil..." - we also think it's one of the more difficult ones!).
|
Kali Starchaser
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 14:45:05 -
[18] - Quote
Here is a fun one I would LOVE feedback on, because its confusing the crap out of me if I should checkmark 'Abnormal sample' or not before I submit it.
http://puu.sh/nBzMy/25bba5ddad.jpg |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 14:54:46 -
[19] - Quote
Kali Starchaser wrote:Here is a fun one I would LOVE feedback on, because its confusing the crap out of me if I should checkmark 'Abnormal sample' or not before I submit it. http://puu.sh/nBzMy/25bba5ddad.jpg
Nice one! I wouldn't say it's abnormal. It's a cell to cell variation pattern of plasma membrane. Possibly some cytoplasm too (but likely not) - if the green staining is perfectly uniform and flat all over the cell when you toggle off red and blue I would say it's only PM. |
Kali Starchaser
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:02:11 -
[20] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Kali Starchaser wrote:Here is a fun one I would LOVE feedback on, because its confusing the crap out of me if I should checkmark 'Abnormal sample' or not before I submit it. http://puu.sh/nBzMy/25bba5ddad.jpg Nice one! I wouldn't say it's abnormal. It's a cell to cell variation pattern of plasma membrane. Possibly some cytoplasm too (but likely not) - if the green staining is perfectly uniform and flat all over the cell when you toggle off red and blue I would say it's only PM.
http://puu.sh/nBAGg/5e1f54ab69.jpg blue + green http://puu.sh/nBANk/f5a4f5bac8.jpg green only http://puu.sh/nBAKB/c67b6f994b.jpg red + blue
I kinda took a bunch of screenshots of it for my oddity folder. :) |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:07:56 -
[21] - Quote
Kali Starchaser wrote:HPA Illuminator wrote:Kali Starchaser wrote:Here is a fun one I would LOVE feedback on, because its confusing the crap out of me if I should checkmark 'Abnormal sample' or not before I submit it. http://puu.sh/nBzMy/25bba5ddad.jpg Nice one! I wouldn't say it's abnormal. It's a cell to cell variation pattern of plasma membrane. Possibly some cytoplasm too (but likely not) - if the green staining is perfectly uniform and flat all over the cell when you toggle off red and blue I would say it's only PM. http://puu.sh/nBAGg/5e1f54ab69.jpg blue + green http://puu.sh/nBANk/f5a4f5bac8.jpg green only http://puu.sh/nBAKB/c67b6f994b.jpg red + blue I kinda took a bunch of screenshots of it for my oddity folder. :)
Hehe good thinking. Definitely a plasma membrane staining with no cytoplasm (at least none that can be seen with this optical sectioning of the cell). |
Terminal Insanity
Pwn 'N Play SpaceMonkey's Alliance
911
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:29:57 -
[22] - Quote
Im pretty sure you selected the correct one... its just gonna take time for people to get good at this, and for the system to weed out the bad ones =p
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
|
Helios Estraella
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 00:48:43 -
[23] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:
I went with Cytoplasm and not Vesicles because the staining in the red part was more blurry, not really defined dots
Im also curious what the difference between an "Abnormal sample" and "cell to cell variation"/"not identifiable" would be
If you look at all the cytoplasm examples the nuclei are pretty much void of green. In your situation the nucleus is filled with green so I wouldn't categorize this as cytoplasm. But I might as well be wrong. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3047
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 01:57:19 -
[24] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/tkkrx53.png Try and work that one out for a laugh. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
199
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 02:06:27 -
[25] - Quote
I really hope a sub forum can be created in the Game Center section. The discovery threads are too god to loose in the clutter
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Eve-Prosper for your market updates!
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2197
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 02:38:41 -
[26] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tkkrx53.png Try and work that one out for a laugh.
Could be mitochondria or a golgi apparatus? I think it's something on top of the nucleus (the red filaments running through the nucleus are a giveaway), not actually in it.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Annemariela Antonela
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
403
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 03:31:36 -
[27] - Quote
I am an Advanced Analyst now.
I'm doing Science.
GÇ£Culture is like a smog. To live within it, you must breathe some of it in and, inevitably, be contaminated.GÇ¥
GÇò Richard K. Morgan, Altered Carbon
|
Van Dracon
Tesla Aerospace Industries
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 05:45:19 -
[28] - Quote
The new feature has caused many inconsistent results. Especialy with basic findings where you are 100% accurate but get a failed result. This has baffled me if I should continue wasting my time in project failure.
For starters the pictures should be increased in size instead of looking through a key hole.
Can we get 3d images if possible.
Why did I fail with one of the results. Please give back users more explanatory information to educate them more on failed results instead of guessing.
I like to help like many others though I believe the new feature needs to be expanded with more features. At this stage until I see improvement I won't be committed to it as I once thought. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 06:58:53 -
[29] - Quote
Terminal Insanity wrote:Im pretty sure you selected the correct one... its just gonna take time for people to get good at this, and for the system to weed out the bad ones =p was i was right in selecting the two categories for this one? Previously i was only selecting Nucleus on samples like this because i felt it was the prominent feature, but now as ive went though some of these and getting more comfortable, im thinking this should be both Nucleus and Cytoplasm? http://i.imgur.com/iYVeStn.pngI went with Cytoplasm and not Vesicles because the staining in the red part was more blurry, not really defined dots Im also curious what the difference between an "Abnormal sample" and "cell to cell variation"/"not identifiable" would be
Difficult one. It's really a borderline regarding the cytoplasm. Nucleus, absolutely correct. Cytoplasm... maybe (it's definitely not vesicles, you're correct there). It could just be "background" staining since it's so weak. So, I can understand why it has a 50% ratio :) Personally, I would go for only nucleus, but I have looked at *a lot* of images, so I'd actually say it's better to label everything you think matches.
Abnormal sample: you find a distinct pattern in the cells that doesn't match any of the categories. OR it's a broken image
Cell to cell variation: When you see e.g. a strong nucleus staining in a few cells, but some are really weak. Or some cells stain nucleus and some stain mitochondria (or whatever). When things differ visibly between cells.
Not identifiable: You can't distinguish any pattern, the green is just all over the place in the cell and everything is just the same shade of green. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:05:29 -
[30] - Quote
Helios Estraella wrote:Terminal Insanity wrote:
I went with Cytoplasm and not Vesicles because the staining in the red part was more blurry, not really defined dots
Im also curious what the difference between an "Abnormal sample" and "cell to cell variation"/"not identifiable" would be
If you look at all the cytoplasm examples the nuclei are pretty much void of green. In your situation the nucleus is filled with green so I wouldn't categorize this as cytoplasm. But I might as well be wrong.
The examples are only showing 1 location, to make it easier to see what it should look like. However, most images (>60%) will have at least dual (some triple) locations, and nucleus/nucleoplasm + cytoplasm is the most common one by far.
In this one I wouldn't click cytoplasm though, but that's based on that it's so weak, that I don't believe it's a specific staining (but it's borderline, so as a gamer, I think you probably should :)) |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:07:25 -
[31] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tkkrx53.png Try and work that one out for a laugh.
LOL! It's either imaged on top of the cell (= wrong focus), or it's a dying cell. If everything looked like that, it's clearly an "unidentifiable". |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:12:13 -
[32] - Quote
Van Dracon wrote:The new feature has caused many inconsistent results. Especialy with basic findings where you are 100% accurate but get a failed result. This has baffled me if I should continue wasting my time in project failure.
For starters the pictures should be increased in size instead of looking through a key hole.
Can we get 3d images if possible.
Why did I fail with one of the results. Please give back users more explanatory information to educate them more on failed results instead of guessing.
I like to help like many others though I believe the new feature needs to be expanded with more features. At this stage until I see improvement I won't be committed to it as I once thought.
I think (not sure) that there's a forum thread that's better for giving feedback regarding the UX/UI. I'll ask ppl to have a look in this forum too though.
3D images is not possible atm as we've so far only acquired 2D images. The reason is that taking 3D just takes too much time (atm 1 image takes around 3s by the microscope, just the actual acquisition, if it were to be 3D it would be a minute or so... that times 150k samples = no doable, unfortunately. It would be awesome to have though!). |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:12:41 -
[33] - Quote
Annemariela Antonela wrote:
Woop woop! |
Sp3ktr3
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 08:01:44 -
[34] - Quote
Annemariela Antonela wrote:
Well I do science all day, and then come home to fly spaceships and blow stuff up and end up doing science again. It never ends!! |
Van Dracon
Tesla Aerospace Industries
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 08:56:52 -
[35] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Van Dracon wrote:The new feature has caused many inconsistent results. Especialy with basic findings where you are 100% accurate but get a failed result. This has baffled me if I should continue wasting my time in project failure.
For starters the pictures should be increased in size instead of looking through a key hole.
Can we get 3d images if possible.
Why did I fail with one of the results. Please give back users more explanatory information to educate them more on failed results instead of guessing.
I like to help like many others though I believe the new feature needs to be expanded with more features. At this stage until I see improvement I won't be committed to it as I once thought. I think (not sure) that there's a forum thread that's better for giving feedback regarding the UX/UI. I'll ask ppl to have a look in this forum too though. 3D images is not possible atm as we've so far only acquired 2D images. The reason is that taking 3D just takes too much time (atm 1 image takes around 3s by the microscope, just the actual acquisition, if it were to be 3D it would be a minute or so... that times 150k samples = no doable, unfortunately. It would be awesome to have though!).
Hey thanks for the reply, Just to tell you something about 3D it would be awesome. Let me explain my views on 2D and 3D. Now for e.g. we have all these green dots supposedly only in the blue area. Ok with 2D you assume there all inside when you look at the photo. But with 3D it can uncover more detail for e.g. at times 3D shots can tell you if all those green dots are floating above the blue area or if they are literally sitting in the blue area. This could be one major factor eliminating errors and being more accurate right ?
Even though it takes 1 minute wouldn't it be more important to be more accurate ?, I would importantly like to be more accurate rather than not especially with this application. I dont want to sound like a smart ass but accuracy is prime. Maybe your software does it already but reports back in 2D i'm not sure maybe. Or is there other applications that can speed up the time for processing images quicker ?. I think over the long run you would have more accurate results if 3D is the latest technology we use today. E.g. the new 3D laser printers.
Anyways thats just my own thoughts. |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 10:28:11 -
[36] - Quote
Van Dracon wrote:HPA Illuminator wrote:Van Dracon wrote:The new feature has caused many inconsistent results. Especialy with basic findings where you are 100% accurate but get a failed result. This has baffled me if I should continue wasting my time in project failure.
For starters the pictures should be increased in size instead of looking through a key hole.
Can we get 3d images if possible.
Why did I fail with one of the results. Please give back users more explanatory information to educate them more on failed results instead of guessing.
I like to help like many others though I believe the new feature needs to be expanded with more features. At this stage until I see improvement I won't be committed to it as I once thought. I think (not sure) that there's a forum thread that's better for giving feedback regarding the UX/UI. I'll ask ppl to have a look in this forum too though. 3D images is not possible atm as we've so far only acquired 2D images. The reason is that taking 3D just takes too much time (atm 1 image takes around 3s by the microscope, just the actual acquisition, if it were to be 3D it would be a minute or so... that times 150k samples = no doable, unfortunately. It would be awesome to have though!). Hey thanks for the reply, Just to tell you something about 3D it would be awesome. Let me explain my views on 2D and 3D. Now for e.g. we have all these green dots supposedly only in the blue area. Ok with 2D you assume there all inside when you look at the photo. But with 3D it can uncover more detail for e.g. at times 3D shots can tell you if all those green dots are floating above the blue area or if they are literally sitting in the blue area. This could be one major factor eliminating errors and being more accurate right ? Even though it takes 1 minute wouldn't it be more important to be more accurate ?, I would importantly like to be more accurate rather than not especially with this application. I dont want to sound like a smart ass but accuracy is prime. Maybe your software does it already but reports back in 2D i'm not sure maybe. Or is there other applications that can speed up the time for processing images quicker ?. I think over the long run you would have more accurate results if 3D is the latest technology we use today. E.g. the new 3D laser printers. Anyways thats just my own thoughts.
Thanks for elaborating, it's interesting to hear what ppl think! I agree that accuracy is really important. NB that each images is of a focal plane/narrow slice of the cell, so for something to be seen from "outside" of the slice, it has to be a reaaaally strong staining, or the image is acquired at the interface between nucleus/cytoplasm.
What we do now is rather than acquiring 3D images, if something can't be visualized perfectly in one image, we will take several images of the same cells, but at different focal planes. That way we can vizualise e.g. focal adhesions in one image, and in the next we will show e.g. nuclear speckles. But yes, it would be ideal to have high-res 3D images to scroll through.
If you see spots in the blue area, and when toggling on/off the red, you see a nice outline of the cell w/o any red in the blue parts - then you know that the image you look at have been acuired "in the middle" of the cell. Thus, the spots in the blue should be there, rather then floating below/on top. Also, the look of the spots can usually tell whether they are in focus or not. If they are big (subjective, I know) and somewhat blurry, they aren't in focus, and you should be hesitant. If more distinct, they are in the same focal plane as the nuclei, and you can trust them.
Technical comment:
No, we acquire 2D images (Leica SP5 confocal microscopes). We have the possibility of acquiring 3D images in the form of stacks, i.e. that the mic first images a slice at the bottom and then works its way up to the top of the cell, slice by slice (the number of slices can be set manually). The reason for using this kind of microscopy is that it gives high-resolution images, and we can look at a certain focal plane at the time (compared to a microscope that images the whole cell at the time, but at much worse resolution). High-res images are really necessary to see substructures such as e.g. the centrosome or fibrillar center. Each focal plane (slice) is very narrow, so (as I mentioned above) for something to be seen from below/above, the signal from it either has to be really strong, or the slice has to be in close proximity to e.g. the interface between the nucleus and cytoplasm.
The reason that it's so time consuming to do image acquisition is that the microscope scans with 1 laser over the sample, then the 2nd laser and finally the 3rd (exciting the fluorophores in the sample at different wavelengths. We have to excite separately to avoid bleedthrough between different channels, eg that staining in the blue is seen in green etc).
Also, the resolution in z will not be as good as the one in xy 2D (general thing due to some laws of physics/how light move through different media or smt that I would have to refresh my memories on before commenting on), which means that even if we do 3D images, they won't be perfect.
Sorry for nerding out on microscopes :) |
Van Dracon
Tesla Aerospace Industries
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 11:27:57 -
[37] - Quote
I really enjoyed reading your reply. Didn't realize how many different cameras there are and how much light can or can't get through. I understand about the slice, i guess that is very accurate in some way. Well speaking on behalf of me and probably many others i think it's going to take some time to get use to. I don't come from a scientist background. Worked in I.T. for some years and was just looking at it from an application point of view.
I spent many years in software automation. Would be nice to have recognition filters so instead of you selecting what images come close to the examined photo you could possibly setup filter options for it instead. E.g. if you see more than 5 green dots in the blue area have that selected instead of you selecting it on the right hand side of the pane. I guess since the photos are static we can't setup such filters cause a photo is a photo.
Because you work with colors is there a way we can calculate how much red/ green, blue light is in the photo. Why am i asking this ?. Again having filters setup based on light ratios based on %. So if there 60% green light in the photo which is it likely to be or be as close the 3 category on the right side of the pane.
Again why am i talking about colors, there are so many results not sure for e.g. 5 or less green dots in blue area have same green light frequency light as the others that full in the same basket. Or is most of this color thing I am talking about irrelevant.
Just my thoughts.
Once again thanks for sharing |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 13:00:26 -
[38] - Quote
Van Dracon wrote: I really enjoyed reading your reply. Didn't realize how many different cameras there are and how much light can or can't get through. I understand about the slice, i guess that is very accurate in some way. Well speaking on behalf of me and probably many others i think it's going to take some time to get use to. I don't come from a scientist background. Worked in I.T. for some years and was just looking at it from an application point of view.
I spent many years in software automation. Would be nice to have recognition filters so instead of you selecting what images come close to the examined photo you could possibly setup filter options for it instead. E.g. if you see more than 5 green dots in the blue area have that selected instead of you selecting it on the right hand side of the pane. I guess since the photos are static we can't setup such filters cause a photo is a photo.
Because you work with colors is there a way we can calculate how much red/ green, blue light is in the photo. Why am i asking this ?. Again having filters setup based on light ratios based on %. So if there 60% green light in the photo which is it likely to be or be as close the 3 category on the right side of the pane.
Again why am i talking about colors, there are so many results not sure for e.g. 5 or less green dots in blue area have same green light frequency light as the others that full in the same basket. Or is most of this color thing I am talking about irrelevant.
Just my thoughts.
Once again thanks for sharing
I'll actually ask my colleague HPA_Dichroic to give some input on this, as he's working with image analysis and could comment so much better.
Thanks for discussing & coming with ideas, love the interest from everyone! |
HPA Dichroic
Polaris Corporation
15
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 16:02:18 -
[39] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Van Dracon wrote: I really enjoyed reading your reply. Didn't realize how many different cameras there are and how much light can or can't get through. I understand about the slice, i guess that is very accurate in some way. Well speaking on behalf of me and probably many others i think it's going to take some time to get use to. I don't come from a scientist background. Worked in I.T. for some years and was just looking at it from an application point of view.
I spent many years in software automation. Would be nice to have recognition filters so instead of you selecting what images come close to the examined photo you could possibly setup filter options for it instead. E.g. if you see more than 5 green dots in the blue area have that selected instead of you selecting it on the right hand side of the pane. I guess since the photos are static we can't setup such filters cause a photo is a photo.
Because you work with colors is there a way we can calculate how much red/ green, blue light is in the photo. Why am i asking this ?. Again having filters setup based on light ratios based on %. So if there 60% green light in the photo which is it likely to be or be as close the 3 category on the right side of the pane.
Again why am i talking about colors, there are so many results not sure for e.g. 5 or less green dots in blue area have same green light frequency light as the others that full in the same basket. Or is most of this color thing I am talking about irrelevant.
Just my thoughts.
Once again thanks for sharing
I'll actually ask my colleague HPA_Dichroic to give some input on this, as he's working with image analysis and could comment so much better. Thanks for discussing & coming with ideas, love the interest from everyone!
Hey Van Dracon, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about here with the recognition filters. Do you mean have some sort of semi-automated classification? We could certainly provide a suggested classification based on some basic image features, but where would the fun in that be
I am working on implementing a fully automated system for this task with my student that will use neural networks to recognize these sub-cellular patterns. Ideally this system will answer most of the images and give a confidence score so that in the future we only have to review the least confident classifications. The system is supervised though so needs lots of quality training data which is where you come in.
Maybe you can explain more about your idea and I'll try to understand it better |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
113
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 16:27:19 -
[40] - Quote
A quick question on the cell-to-cell variation option, how much does it play into the weighting of your accuracy change if you tick cell-to-cell variation but others haven't, or if you don't tick it and others have? Is it treated just like the other answers?
The reason I am asking is that a lot of the time, this box doesn't seem to be being ticked by the majority for some obvious variation so the consensus has it at 0. I guess this is also even more subjective than the other classifications as it comes down to how much variation justifies ticking the option. |
|
Beta Maoye
103
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 17:20:24 -
[41] - Quote
I think the classification of this image is wrong. It is not Nucleus. It should be Mitochondria. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2197
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 17:38:16 -
[42] - Quote
Helios Anduath wrote:A quick question on the cell-to-cell variation option, how much does it play into the weighting of your accuracy change if you tick cell-to-cell variation but others haven't, or if you don't tick it and others have? Is it treated just like the other answers?
The reason I am asking is that a lot of the time, this box doesn't seem to be being ticked by the majority for some obvious variation so the consensus has it at 0. I guess this is also even more subjective than the other classifications as it comes down to how much variation justifies ticking the option.
Yea, I always feel like a chump clicking cell-to-cell variations, even when it is obviously the case. I just do it anyway.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Nosum Hseebnrido
Interregnum.
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 18:04:58 -
[43] - Quote
http://imgur.com/9JrEWrq
So 92% think that small green dots are only in blue area, and 38% vice versa - everyone wins but not me.
http://eveboard.com/pilot/Nosum_Hseebnrido
|
Memphis Baas
1316
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 18:15:07 -
[44] - Quote
With that one, I'd have chosen the 92%, and there's cellular wall stuff going on because in the center left-ish area if you turn off the red and the blue you can still see the shapes of the cells.
I think I figured out the 92%: you switch to just green and blue, and if you can still see the potato with holes shape with the blue turned off and just green showing, then that's the 92% choice, otherwise if you just see the shape of the nucleus but not the darker holes, then it's the 7% choice.
Silvenin wrote:For some reason people seem to be afraid of the "unspecific" or "cell to cell variations" buttons like they bite or something. With "unspecific" you can't tell, but in the case of "cell to cell variations" I believe that you can't just pick that, you have to also pick the pattern that varies, or the 2-3 different patterns that you see. It's like:
"Which of the following patterns do you see here?" "Yes." |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 18:50:41 -
[45] - Quote
Helios Anduath wrote:A quick question on the cell-to-cell variation option, how much does it play into the weighting of your accuracy change if you tick cell-to-cell variation but others haven't, or if you don't tick it and others have? Is it treated just like the other answers?
The reason I am asking is that a lot of the time, this box doesn't seem to be being ticked by the majority for some obvious variation so the consensus has it at 0. I guess this is also even more subjective than the other classifications as it comes down to how much variation justifies ticking the option.
Good question and I don't know. Have forwarded it so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will answer soon! |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
113
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 18:52:59 -
[46] - Quote
Nosum Hseebnrido wrote:http://imgur.com/9JrEWrq So 92% think that small green dots are only in blue area, and 38% vice versa - everyone wins but not me .
There can be multiple classifications for one cell, so you can have, for example, selections from the nucleus and cytoplasm sections just like you had in the tutorials. Anything that should be mutually exclusive excludes you from making any conflicting choices.
With that image, the staining is more concentrated in the nucleus and you can see "holes" in it that line up with the "holes" in the blue so the 92% are correct.
The staining in the cytoplasm (red bit) could be background staining or could be something else - hard to say without being able to change colour channels.
Personally, I would be considering selecting cell-to-cell variation as well due to the different intensities present.
In any case, it is not unidentifiable because there is clear differentiation in staining across the cell and there are clearly identifiable features. |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 19:02:38 -
[47] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:I think the classification of this image is wrong. It is not Nucleus. It should be Mitochondria.
Absolutely correct. I will fwd it. |
Circumstantial Evidence
264
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 21:52:50 -
[48] - Quote
Sample #100054449
Blue - Green - G+B
I feel like a rebel... or a pioneer. Cytoplasm (80%), sure... but can everyone miss small spots "overlapping with holes in the blue marker"?
I had trouble tagging with "nucleus" (80%) because staining intensity seems at the same level both in and outside the nucleus. I regret not tagging "nuclear membrane" - its kind of faint, didn't notice until now.
|
Memphis Baas
1323
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 23:16:35 -
[49] - Quote
The sample images are specific in one way: with the green removed, they only have 3 zones:
- black (outside the cell) - red (inside the cell, outside the nucleus) - blue (inside the nucleus)
Graphics devs could probably code this basic pixel counting:
- blur the red+blue channel images to create fuzzy splotches of color to outline the nuclear and cell body areas - map the black, red, and blue zones - overlay the green channel, and calculate what percentage of the green falls within the black, red, blue (look at each green pixel's neighbors) - attach the percentage to each sample: "30% of the green in this sample is in the nucleus, 60% in the cell body, 10% outside the cell. Make your selections appropriately."
- the Project Discovery server can then eliminate or flag the obviously wrong samples: "Hey you guys had a 100% consensus of nucleoli, but 0% of the green in this sample is in the nucleus, what gives?" Simple comparison of the pixel count percentages vs. our choice percentages can flag wrong answers, maybe even give a "level of accuracy" estimate for each sample.
|
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 23:48:30 -
[50] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tkkrx53.png Try and work that one out for a laugh.
That's the Jove nebula 0.216 secs after supernova from a distance of 15.764 LYs with optical enhancements. |
|
Nankeen Heron
Jim's Mowing
20
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 00:31:01 -
[51] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:http://i.imgur.com/tkkrx53.png Try and work that one out for a laugh.
Seeker spore.
For those like me that are struggling to tell the difference between some of the structures, there are more hi-res examples here: http://www.proteinatlas.org/learn/dictionary/cell |
Van Dracon
Tesla Aerospace Industries
3
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:07:58 -
[52] - Quote
HPA Dichroic wrote:HPA Illuminator wrote:Van Dracon wrote: I really enjoyed reading your reply. Didn't realize how many different cameras there are and how much light can or can't get through. I understand about the slice, i guess that is very accurate in some way. Well speaking on behalf of me and probably many others i think it's going to take some time to get use to. I don't come from a scientist background. Worked in I.T. for some years and was just looking at it from an application point of view.
I spent many years in software automation. Would be nice to have recognition filters so instead of you selecting what images come close to the examined photo you could possibly setup filter options for it instead. E.g. if you see more than 5 green dots in the blue area have that selected instead of you selecting it on the right hand side of the pane. I guess since the photos are static we can't setup such filters cause a photo is a photo.
Because you work with colors is there a way we can calculate how much red/ green, blue light is in the photo. Why am i asking this ?. Again having filters setup based on light ratios based on %. So if there 60% green light in the photo which is it likely to be or be as close the 3 category on the right side of the pane.
Again why am i talking about colors, there are so many results not sure for e.g. 5 or less green dots in blue area have same green light frequency light as the others that full in the same basket. Or is most of this color thing I am talking about irrelevant.
Just my thoughts.
Once again thanks for sharing
I'll actually ask my colleague HPA_Dichroic to give some input on this, as he's working with image analysis and could comment so much better. Thanks for discussing & coming with ideas, love the interest from everyone! Hey Van Dracon, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about here with the recognition filters. Do you mean have some sort of semi-automated classification? We could certainly provide a suggested classification based on some basic image features, but where would the fun in that be I am working on implementing a fully automated system for this task with my student that will use neural networks to recognize these sub-cellular patterns. Ideally this system will answer most of the images and give a confidence score so that in the future we only have to review the least confident classifications. The system is supervised though so needs lots of quality training data which is where you come in. Maybe you can explain more about your idea and I'll try to understand it better
Hi Dichroic,
Thanks for the feedback, interesting stuff -). Yeah with the recognition filters what i was thinking was areas where for e.g. you have a straight line the software measuring that. Or if there are circles that can be measured. Measuring patterns or pattern recognition. This also calculates the light or colors, so for e.g. we have a circle that is recognised and we also measure the light. Thats why i asked before do specific patters have a set ratio based on color light scheme they fall in.
I'm probably going way off track with the game here. As you know military jets scan on heat, so when they fire a rocket it's going towards the heated area. Thats just an e.g. I dont want to come up with something that makes the game boring. Just trying to help. Yes it will eventually come down to the user filtering it out. The computers can only give us the scanned patterns or the most matched and then we decide.
So my dream feature in this game probably asking too much was going to be, can we have a filter that the cpu does most of the calculations to around say 80% and then the remaining 20% be given to the human to make judgement on. What we are given so far is color tools. We dont have tools to use to measure or work with patterns even those color tools do show some patterns in a way. Yet some basic photos i've worked with have been wrong because of patterns and not colors. From what i see you think you get it spot on because the colors are accurate with the supported e.g. photo in game.
So far we have talked about patterns and light. Have we talked about sound vibrations -) does sound affect these cells differently when they are affected by sound -). That's one form of pattern recognition only if they all react differently to it for e.g. circles react differently to straight lines when sound or vibration is applied. Anyways too much chit chat from me.
The best references for light measurements and temperatures would military oh and let's not forget nasa. Nasa as you know use specific measureing tools to measure pluto's surface. Also xray the surface. Just a thought. Anways thank you for the info. Will see how things progress so far it's fun and new.
Many thanks. |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:55:16 -
[53] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Sample #100054449 Blue - Green - G+BI feel like a rebel... or a pioneer. Cytoplasm (80%), sure... but can everyone miss small spots "overlapping with holes in the blue marker"? I had trouble tagging with "nucleus" (80%) because staining intensity seems at the same level both in and outside the nucleus. I regret not tagging "nuclear membrane" - its kind of faint, didn't notice until now.
Agree that the fibrillar center are clearly visible (not sure why so many would go for nucleoplasm here?).
I'm not sure that it's a nuclear staining or just the nuclear membrane... But I'm leaning towards both being correct.
On side note: I'm in the phone so just opened the first picture and was zooming and looking really close to the screen, being like... What green staining is he talking about... Is there such a difference looking at a cell phone screen compared to the computer one? Hehe my excuse being it's 6.50 am and I just woke up. |
Lulu Lunette
ThinkTank Phoenix TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
311
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:11:21 -
[54] - Quote
I started off really bad. Even though I was trying, button mashing would have probably gotten better results!!
But I clawed out of a 40% accuracy at level 12 and back at 50% at level 20. Feels good. I want that armor lol
@lunettelulu7
|
Beta Maoye
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:05:22 -
[55] - Quote
In this classification result, I realized I was wrong about Cytoplasm for so many cases. |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:08:33 -
[56] - Quote
I need to get an image hosting thing, I've had some really interesting ones. One looked like a nucleus popped and all the goo came out! It was glowing bright green and there was a black spot where the nucleus should have been. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:33:39 -
[57] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:In this classification result, I realized I was wrong about Cytoplasm for so many cases.
Not sure what you mean? Have added it to our list of possible errors, will double check whether it should have the cell-to-cell variation as a class. Will get back! |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:34:04 -
[58] - Quote
Galaxxis wrote:I need to get an image hosting thing, I've had some really interesting ones. One looked like a nucleus popped and all the goo came out! It was glowing bright green and there was a black spot where the nucleus should have been.
Would love to see that one! :) |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1901
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:44:59 -
[59] - Quote
https://i.gyazo.com/54efcad7e2f4666f6ad66988a2e17ceb.png |
Nick Kanjus
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 21:55:25 -
[60] - Quote
I'm a bit confused about this one. I might be totally wrong but when I read the description of cytoplasm it says:
Seen throughout all the whole cell, except in the nucleus (blue marker). The intensity can vary throughout the cell, and is often stronger close to the nucleus.
in other words: all the red might be green but the blue is blue without a spec of green in it.
Now I got image 100096917 (as in the screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/cVv5kwc.png ). Basically its green all over so I figured the sample was useless. But to my surprise 50% match was on cytoplasm. Am I misunderstanding cytoplasm and reject my samples to soon. Or did 50% of the people not read the first line of the description? |
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 22:00:29 -
[61] - Quote
Nick Kanjus wrote:I'm a bit confused about this one. I might be totally wrong but when I read the description of cytoplasm it says: Seen throughout all the whole cell, except in the nucleus (blue marker). The intensity can vary throughout the cell, and is often stronger close to the nucleus. in other words: all the red might be green but the blue is blue without a spec of green in it. Now I got image 100096917 (as in the screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/cVv5kwc.png ). Basically its green all over so I figured the sample was useless. But to my surprise 50% match was on cytoplasm. Am I misunderstanding cytoplasm and reject my samples to soon. Or did 50% of the people not read the first line of the description?
I've seen ones with most people voting cytoplasm even if there's actually no green at all in the red part. It seems like everyone just picks that on every slide because they think everyone else is going to pick it as well. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1901
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 22:10:52 -
[62] - Quote
it's hard to say without the color filters
keep in mind that it can be cytoplasm and nucleoplasm/nucleoplasm in the same picture.
it leans towards cytoplasm, if the red area is well stained with the green marker, maybe, but not necessarily concentraded around the blue area, but can also be equally spread throughout the whole cell. add vesicles if there are bright green dots.
it leans towards nucleoplasm/nucleus if only the blue part is stained.
in any case, you need a visible difference between the two areas to mark either. if there is NO difference, pick weak or undefined.
if there is only very weak staining in the red area, don't pick cytoplasm.
i would say that's plasma membrane in your picture since the green marker spills outside of the red one. it could be more than that, but that's not really visible without the filters.
|
Nick Kanjus
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 22:17:12 -
[63] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:it's hard to say without the color filters
keep in mind that it can be cytoplasm and nucleoplasm/nucleoplasm in the same picture.
I'm a bit confused about that. Nucleoplasm/nucleoplasm demands that there is some sort of green in the blue area. While cytoplasm forbids it . |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1901
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 22:30:36 -
[64] - Quote
you can have both at the same time. you just need a visible difference between the two areas to make a distinction.
i'm trying to find an example for you right now, give me a few minutes :) |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1901
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 23:09:08 -
[65] - Quote
took me a while to find a good one, but here we go:
green: https://gyazo.com/fccb98747601e1572971c0e1fd821ffd
blue: https://gyazo.com/0b43756d9a4dd0bfa55ea1ea4af46f99
red: https://gyazo.com/9b0b960f63f7de49f49752ce3308b6bd
green+blue: https://gyazo.com/2f505174801640b6add614f8c13784c7
the green marker is very well visible throughout the entire cell, however, it's much stronger in the nucleus (blue marker).
the holes in the nucleus aren't very pronounced, but if you look closely, you can see them. they match up with the green marker, therefore we are checking the "nucleoplasm" option
the consensus on this one is 100% nucleoplasm, 90% cytoplasm and 10% plasmatic membrane.
i don't think the plasmatic membrane option is correct, since the green staining can not be seen clearly outside the boundaries set by the red marker
|
Nick Kanjus
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 23:23:48 -
[66] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:took me a while to find a good one, but here we go:
the consensus on this one is 100% nucleoplasm, 90% cytoplasm and 10% plasmatic membrane.
i don't think the plasmatic membrane option is correct, since the green staining can not be seen clearly outside the boundaries set by the red marker
Hey man first off thank you for taking the effort to explain this ;)
I would fully agree to you about the Nucleoplasm, your description fits the way I look at it. I also agree that the plasmatic membrane is incorrect. But I disagree to the 90% cytoplasm result.
To quote myself, cytoplasm: 'all the red might be green but the blue is blue without a spec of green in it.' Your imagine is showing green all over the cells (including the blue area's). shouldn't that mean it is defiantly NOT cytopalsm |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 00:23:37 -
[67] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/131ujOT.png
Here's one with a ton of stuff going on. It has a cytokinetic bridge, an organizing center and spaghetti!! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1901
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 00:36:13 -
[68] - Quote
@Nick
once again. you can have multiple things going on at the same time. the green staining in the blue area comes from nucleoplasm, whereas the green staining in the red area comes from cytoplasm
this is an example of pure cytoplasm (+ vesicles)
https://gyazo.com/597b71ec73291b5b1f0fce9b64ec7cd4
the faint green spots in this zoom from the middle section
https://gyazo.com/d0bf894db0a7f870772ca1caf7917045
is just from more cytoplasm that is on top or below the nucleus. (you are looking at a 2D image of a 3D structure) |
Beta Maoye
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 02:26:21 -
[69] - Quote
I have a case that fit both Nucleoplasm and Nucleoli, but these two options are exclusive in the mini game. Green and blue channel: http://uploadpie.com/LiGB6 Green channel: http://uploadpie.com/eEVpE Blue channel: http://uploadpie.com/XqAqA |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 07:28:33 -
[70] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:https://i.gyazo.com/54efcad7e2f4666f6ad66988a2e17ceb.png
Was this a question? I would say it's either cell junctions of plasma membrane. I would lean towards plasma membrane because in the upper left and lower right parts you can see some staining outside the cells. Possibly both CJ+PM is correct, that's also an option :) |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 07:32:01 -
[71] - Quote
Nick Kanjus wrote:I'm a bit confused about this one. I might be totally wrong but when I read the description of cytoplasm it says: Seen throughout all the whole cell, except in the nucleus (blue marker). The intensity can vary throughout the cell, and is often stronger close to the nucleus. in other words: all the red might be green but the blue is blue without a spec of green in it. Now I got image 100096917 (as in the screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/cVv5kwc.png ). Basically its green all over so I figured the sample was useless. But to my surprise 50% match was on cytoplasm. Am I misunderstanding cytoplasm and reject my samples to soon. Or did 50% of the people not read the first line of the description? EDIT: same on 100021233: http://i.imgur.com/wRnL8Sq.png that one is even fully conflicting with both Nucleus and Cytoplasm
Multiple choices are ok. And you should really try toggling all colors on/off and look at green only, green+red, green+blue.
This is probably helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW5Yl6MjZjk&feature=youtu.be |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 07:37:03 -
[72] - Quote
There are some cases like that, and if the nucleoli is prominent, i'd go for nucleus + nucleoli.
In this case, I don't think the overlap is good, it looks like nucleoplasm+speckles to me (just like you've chosen). |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 15:36:46 -
[73] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/bAPqPdI.jpg
Oh no!!! Something ate the aggresome! |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 16:04:32 -
[74] - Quote
lol pacman hungry |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
117
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 16:07:07 -
[75] - Quote
mmmmmm, chocolate coated aggresome |
Hal Morsh
Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem
514
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 16:43:34 -
[76] - Quote
But I bet it tells you two of the options are wrong, and 60% choose cytoplasm, because if project discovery isn't outright glitching it's most people selecting cytoplasm.
Problems, Problems.
Q: How many EVE players does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: CHANGE???????? NNOOOOOOOOOOO
|
Selphentine
Pastafaris
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 16:45:10 -
[77] - Quote
Nick Kanjus wrote:Gilbaron wrote:took me a while to find a good one, but here we go:
the consensus on this one is 100% nucleoplasm, 90% cytoplasm and 10% plasmatic membrane.
i don't think the plasmatic membrane option is correct, since the green staining can not be seen clearly outside the boundaries set by the red marker
Hey man first off thank you for taking the effort to explain this ;) I would fully agree to you about the Nucleoplasm, your description fits the way I look at it. I also agree that the plasmatic membrane is incorrect. But I disagree to the 90% cytoplasm result. To quote myself, cytoplasm: 'all the red might be green but the blue is blue without a spec of green in it.' Your imagine is showing green all over the cells (including the blue area's). shouldn't that mean it is defiantly NOT cytopalsm
As far as i know, this thing is also not purely 2 dimensional. you may have cytoplasma under/over a core, giving it a green look and way less green, but still green, in the core. (in general, not for this example.) |
Nick Kanjus
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 17:50:38 -
[78] - Quote
Selphentine wrote:took me a while to find a good one, but here we go:
As far as i know, this thing is also not purely 2 dimensional. you may have cytoplasma under/over a core, giving it a green look and way less green, but still green, in the core. (in general, not for this example.)
with that mindset things would start making more sense. If I'm allowed to hide the green with the blue then it could indeed be both at the same time. I still find it somewhat strange but seeing as most people do it and that most results of the test server where correct....I must have been wrong.
Thanks to you (and the others) for all the help :)
|
Beta Maoye
108
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:08:51 -
[79] - Quote
I think this slide has two signals, microtubule organizing center and centrosome, not just microtubule organizing center. RBG: http://uploadpie.com/onin4 Zoom 1: http://uploadpie.com/IHDCU Zoom 2: http://uploadpie.com/wRlX5 Zoom 3: http://uploadpie.com/VlkIU |
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
122
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:09:56 -
[80] - Quote
They don't really look like Centrosome because they are not two very well defined spots side by side. I would just have gone MTOC for this. |
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1707
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:21:36 -
[81] - Quote
I've heard that some images was analyzed by professionals? screenshot
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 22:05:02 -
[82] - Quote
Helios Anduath wrote:They don't really look like Centrosome because they are not two very well defined spots side by side. I would just have gone MTOC for this.
Based on zoom 2 I'd go for centrsosome and think the others cells were slightly out of focus. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 22:05:40 -
[83] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:I've heard that some images was analyzed by professionals? screenshot
Thanks for noticing, will double check it and correct if necessary. |
beakerax
Pator Tech School
230
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 01:54:38 -
[84] - Quote
ummm http://i.imgur.com/3AVfx0H.jpg (#100078311) |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 02:48:45 -
[85] - Quote
I had that one yesterday! I put cytoskeleton, although I'm really not sure if that's right. |
Memphis Baas
1338
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 03:06:14 -
[86] - Quote
I had that one just now; the splash of green overlaps the nucleus on every cell, so it can't really be anything outside the nucleus. I put Nuclear Membrane, Abnormal sample.
A Google images for "abnormal nuclear membrane stain" shows a couple examples where the membrane could fold in on itself or maybe shrink, to look slightly like that. |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 04:16:38 -
[87] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:I had that one just now; the splash of green overlaps the nucleus on every cell, so it can't really be anything outside the nucleus. I put Nuclear Membrane, Abnormal sample. A Google images for "abnormal nuclear membrane stain" shows a couple examples where the membrane could fold in on itself or maybe shrink, to look slightly like that.
I mean I agree that it kind of looks like that, and that was my thought as well, but then why is there still a nice round blue part visible? Shouldn't that be all scrunched up inside the green part? |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 07:03:48 -
[88] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/DGmPo87.png
I get these sometimes, but usually there's no dye anywhere except for a single bundle of microtubule ends somewhere. This one has green goo all over the place. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 07:07:20 -
[89] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:I had that one just now; the splash of green overlaps the nucleus on every cell, so it can't really be anything outside the nucleus. I put Nuclear Membrane, Abnormal sample. A Google images for "abnormal nuclear membrane stain" shows a couple examples where the membrane could fold in on itself or maybe shrink, to look slightly like that.
<3
Something happened to cells during prepp, so what you see is not something that is actually specific. I don't think it't the nuclear membrane but rather the plasma membrane that has shrunk (the nucleus still intact).
Have added to checkup list. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 07:08:39 -
[90] - Quote
Galaxxis wrote:http://i.imgur.com/DGmPo87.pngI get these sometimes, but usually there's no dye anywhere except for a single bundle of microtubule ends somewhere. This one has green goo all over the place.
I'd say the green mostly is specific, and I'll be curious to see the results of it (I think some cells have been washed away during sample prep). |
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 00:22:57 -
[91] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/PX4VL8r.png
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School
230
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 02:51:55 -
[92] - Quote
think I this one was posted earlier, but here's the whole slide: http://i.imgur.com/clY9Uw5.jpg (100073159)
Metaphase stage of mitosis? fantastic image, whatever it is |
Memphis Baas
1343
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 04:05:13 -
[93] - Quote
I would guess Plasma Membrane, Focal Adhesions, and Nuclear Speckles. |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
84
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 08:24:14 -
[94] - Quote
Ok so, this game is totally wrong.
look at this sample:
http://www.netsky.org/eve/notcor2.png
As you can see it's wrong, but it's not. I chose Nucleoplasm because it is Nucleoplasm, but game says no it is not.
And the "correct answer" was: Nuclear speckles
|
Helios Anduath
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
123
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 11:02:37 -
[95] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Ok so, this game is totally wrong. look at this sample: http://www.netsky.org/eve/notcor2.png As you can see it's wrong, but it's not. I chose Nucleoplasm because it is Nucleoplasm, but game says no it is not. And the "correct answer" was: Nuclear speckles
The game isn't wrong, it just has a mis-categorised control sample (though I would have gone nucleoplasm plus speckles because there looks to be speckling). HPA people have been quite good at seeing these posts and grabbing the mis-categorised controls. |
Memphis Baas
1346
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 15:34:28 -
[96] - Quote
I think he's using the term "the game is wrong" because, although they are "quite good at seeing these posts and grabbing the mis-categorised controls" he still gets his accuracy penalized and losing the AK points for his armor or whatever he wants to get out of the game through no fault of his own.
EDIT: it's presented as an in-game activity, we get in-game rewards, people have a right to treat it as a game and, well, meta-game it. |
Katsu Kho
Kho Incorporated The Lone Space Wolves
9953
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:12:03 -
[97] - Quote
I found this one to be a little weird...
Katsu Kho
Ambassador of the Jin-Mei Interstellar Space Bushid+ì council
Find me on YouTube - Latest video: Project Discovery Tutorial
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:16:55 -
[98] - Quote
Katsu Kho wrote:I found this one to be a little weird...
That's a great example of endoplasmic reticulum. See how it looks like a really thick spider web? |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:18:03 -
[99] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Ok so, this game is totally wrong. look at this sample: http://www.netsky.org/eve/notcor2.png As you can see it's wrong, but it's not. I chose Nucleoplasm because it is Nucleoplasm, but game says no it is not. And the "correct answer" was: Nuclear speckles
It's a known error. Really sorry for it, we're working on fixing the samples that incorrect and hope to have fixed it by this week. *crossing fingers* Will let ppl know when done. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:19:15 -
[100] - Quote
Galaxxis wrote:Katsu Kho wrote:I found this one to be a little weird... That's a great example of endoplasmic reticulum. See how it looks like a really thick spider web?
What ^ said.
Also, there's a really nice staining of the nuclear membrane, which should also be seen for ER (they are connected). NB that only should be annotated ER. |
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:21:37 -
[101] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/ztbGdXM.png
Not really sure I agree with cytoplasm on this one. |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:34:07 -
[102] - Quote
Will check it! |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
85
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 20:48:18 -
[103] - Quote
I got smiling faces
http://www.netsky.org/eve/smiley.png
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 04:45:24 -
[104] - Quote
beakerax wrote:I think this one was posted earlier, but here's the whole slide: http://i.imgur.com/clY9Uw5.jpg (100073159) Metaphase stage of mitosis? fantastic image, whatever it is
Here's another one! http://i.imgur.com/MG3jQBa.jpg
There's one of those in the upper right corner. I had another one earlier with two of those side-by-side and what looked like centrosomes on each one. What are they?
Another one. They're everywhere! http://i.imgur.com/bOcz5zF.jpg |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 05:14:42 -
[105] - Quote
They are dividing cells (mitosis). What you see is DNA (blue) that has been duplicated and condensed and is now being pulled apart by the red.
The cells with cytokinetic bridges (nicely labeled :)) have just undergone mitosis and are about to/have just been disconnected there.
As for why more are appearing... Either we've in general become much better at looking for such cells over the years. I also think it matters how long the cells are allowed to grow before we stain them. 7 years ago, they only got to grow for 2-4h but now we keep them for 24h most of the time. In general cells duplicate around every 24-36h in vitro so it's far more likely to catch them in mitosis now. And they probably also feel better, getting a longer time to adhere to the slide,which increases chances of mitosis.
As for why you get so many in a row... Random!
|
Circumstantial Evidence
265
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 17:14:34 -
[106] - Quote
Sample 100000440 has been defined as 100% Vesicles, and I regret not making this choice, in addition to Rods and Rings. I picked R&R because I saw a few rod-like structures... am I completely wrong, or could this sample contain both R&R and Vesicles? Must complete ring structures be present, in samples with R&R? I've marked the BG views with arrows.
Area 1 BG -- RGB || Area 2 BG -- RGB
Sample 100000264 has been defined as 100% Cytoplasm, but I wonder what the structures that seem to outline some parts of the cells might be, marked with arrows in my Green-only screenshot. I thought they might represent a plasma membrane.
100000264 Green -- 100000264 RGB |
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 23:45:05 -
[107] - Quote
I'd like to request this thread be as sticky as a Focal Adhesion |
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 00:27:58 -
[108] - Quote
I have sample 100016981 that seems to me to be a 'nuclear bodies' one, but when I submit it, the community consensus is 100% vesicles? Odd. No screenshot, sorry.
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 02:26:02 -
[109] - Quote
Guys, vesicles!
http://i.imgur.com/gZ7mtke.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4y7CBQd.png
I think we need another thread for problem slides, since these aren't really interesting or challenging. |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 08:23:35 -
[110] - Quote
Perfect cell junctions! Don't think it's vesicles (was that a question?) as really random pattern all over cyto/nucleus, so doesn't seem specific.
If you start a new thread, please let me know so we can keep track of what you think is difficult & improve (and give relevant feedback). |
|
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 16:26:22 -
[111] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/Lh4E8Pr.jpg
Suddenly I'm hungry for donuts. |
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
275
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 18:07:52 -
[112] - Quote
People like to pick Cytoplasm for the strangest things.. Cytoplasm everywhere! (especially when one gets podded...) |
Joe Thelere
Space Colony Synergy of Steel
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 19:13:29 -
[113] - Quote
I had an image analysed by a professional today: http://imgur.com/8cy3D7m How much difference in intensity is needed to be correct with Cell-to-Cell-Variations? Or was the professional wrong? |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 21:17:13 -
[114] - Quote
Joe Thelere wrote:I had an image analysed by a professional today: http://imgur.com/8cy3D7m How much difference in intensity is needed to be correct with Cell-to-Cell-Variations? Or was the professional wrong?
Personally I would agree with you on that one. I've had several where it was either classified wrong or they missed something, so it happens from time to time. Presumably they'll go back and check if something is wrong with a control sample. |
Selphentine
Pastafaris
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.18 21:51:22 -
[115] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/1jGFchx.jpg
Im by far noone that claims professionals are wrong, and i understand a lot in PD, but im very, very sure that nucleoli shouldnt be wrong here. |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.19 19:05:15 -
[116] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote: If you start a new thread, please let me know so we can keep track of what you think is difficult & improve (and give relevant feedback).
Rather than start a new thread and have stuff spread out all over, we can probably just keep everything in this one.
http://i.imgur.com/YHtfNos.jpg
This one is just completely broken. This isn't zoomed in on a section, it's just what the slide looks like, |
Galaxxis
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.20 00:24:01 -
[117] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Galaxxis wrote:I need to get an image hosting thing, I've had some really interesting ones. One looked like a nucleus popped and all the goo came out! It was glowing bright green and there was a black spot where the nucleus should have been. Would love to see that one! :)
I finally got another one that looks a lot like it. http://i.imgur.com/Qt6kI0b.png http://i.imgur.com/SRMzdv0.png |
Beta Maoye
110
|
Posted - 2016.03.20 03:32:12 -
[118] - Quote
Many different opinions on this one. http://uploadpie.com/RTkEo |
Yllej Gniht
0rizen Irregulars Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 14:54:56 -
[119] - Quote
Image no. 100000325
Classification Result says: "Nuclear Speckles"; it sure looks like "Nucleoplasm" to me.
What's the deal here? Is this faint variation enough to declassify it as "nucleoplasm" and flag it as "nuclear speckles"?
If so, some explaining text would be appreciated with those very hard to understand "teaching moments".
Thank you! :) |
Memphis Baas
1369
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 23:48:43 -
[120] - Quote
Why is the nucleus option wrong in this accuracy sample? http://imgur.com/SjyQSxW
Please explain. |
|
Azuriel
Saints of the Sword
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 00:40:14 -
[121] - Quote
Project Discovery,
Please confirm that I was wrong on this classification. I put cytoskeleton (cytokinetic bridge) because to the top right of the bottom-most cell I clearly see one. Let me know if my eyes are playing tricks.
http://uploadpie.com/HmEUW
Thanks |
Memphis Baas
1369
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 01:23:26 -
[122] - Quote
IMO although the kinetic bridge shape is there (in red), it's not lit up in green, so I wouldn't have chosen it as an answer.
What they're doing is they're coloring in green one protein at a time, and then we're supposed to identify where in the cell the green protein is hiding. So a cell can have a nucleus, cytoplasm, and a kinetic bridge, but if none of those are green (or with dots), then the protein that that sample is about is not there.
|
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
97
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 01:25:44 -
[123] - Quote
Here's an interesting one I came across. It looks as though the stain might be binding cilia:
http://imgur.com/1naVxSY |
Memphis Baas
1369
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 01:28:35 -
[124] - Quote
Nuclear many dots, cytoplasm, and plasma membrane.
Incidentally, that website is viewable through the in-game browser, so we can look at extra examples. Just create a bookmark in the in-game browser. |
Vardec Crom
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 04:08:01 -
[125] - Quote
Azuriel wrote:Project Discovery, Please confirm that I was wrong on this classification. I put cytoskeleton (cytokinetic bridge) because to the top right of the bottom-most cell I clearly see one. Let me know if my eyes are playing tricks. http://uploadpie.com/HmEUW Thanks
I agree that it's there but I don't think it's stained. |
Schnuckelpuppe
Hogyoku Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 12:17:46 -
[126] - Quote
@Memphis Baas: Nice website :)
Still, sometimes i think i just get trolled: http://imgur.com/QIAQhxm |
Demica Diaz
SE-1
274
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 12:39:36 -
[127] - Quote
Too good to be true. In EVE, it HAS to be a trap... Image |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
99
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:40:06 -
[128] - Quote
Demica Diaz wrote:Too good to be true. In EVE, it HAS to be a trap... Image
LOL spot the control slide! |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
19
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:31:26 -
[129] - Quote
Demica Diaz wrote:Too good to be true. In EVE, it HAS to be a trap... Image
It's clearly cytoplasm!! *repeatedly slams the cytoplasm button* |
Cyndrogen
The Greatest Corp in the Universe
702
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:43:45 -
[130] - Quote
Great idea to post these, I'm also having a hard time nailing down some of the samples and I'm starting to realize why this was released as a mini game. I wish there was a way to do this in game, to share samples or somehow team up and work together. I'm new to the mini game and also to cell research, not my profession, but I am a visual artist and I am very good at spotting patterns and colors. So far I have a decent rate of correct guesses but I always get samples which surprise me and the correct answer is puzzling based on the description.
I guess we could just use teamspeak, form a fleet and post images online to try and reach a better consensus and also learn to better identify these. I know I could definitely use a mentor on this one. |
|
Cyndrogen
The Greatest Corp in the Universe
703
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 20:01:41 -
[131] - Quote
I was so sure I got this one right .... then this happened
closeup http://imgur.com/ObbKHRs
same image zoomed out http://imgur.com/ps9qG27
Every day in every way I improve my skills and get better.
|
Cyndrogen
The Greatest Corp in the Universe
703
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 20:21:10 -
[132] - Quote
I just got a really weird sample.... at first glance it looks obvious but then it doesn't really fit into any category 100%
http://imgur.com/Wi6KjrS
Every day in every way I improve my skills and get better.
|
Rakin o'Dubois
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 12:55:19 -
[133] - Quote
I got the exact same image and totally agree with your classification. I did the same.
I wonder how much screwed the baseline is due to the community consensus approach. Is there anything known on how they avoid those effects?
Cheers Rakin |
Beta Maoye
111
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 15:57:43 -
[134] - Quote
This one missed green and blue parts. http://uploadpie.com/Voupw |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
100
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 16:53:22 -
[135] - Quote
Yeah, Hoescht and FITC stains didn't bind. Report as abnormal sample. |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
100
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 16:57:12 -
[136] - Quote
Rakin o'Dubois wrote:I got the exact same image and totally agree with your classification. I did the same. I wonder how much screwed the baseline is due to the community consensus approach. Is there anything known on how they avoid those effects? Cheers Rakin
They use data analysis and draw up graphs of the likelihood of 'incorrect result' from the community based on percentage consensus. Draw a graph and pick a 'cut-off' consensus for which they will accept as the community being correct. As with all science, some of the results will be wrong, but they will be able to minimise this as required. They can even estimate their error rate with reasonable precision.
Data can also be cleaned up by removing all data entries by repeat offenders of the 'cytoplasm, nucleus' trick. Additionally, they can opt to look at data from the 90%+ graded players where overall community consensus is middling. There are many ways they can improve their data set to obtain best results. |
Beta Maoye
111
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 05:55:28 -
[137] - Quote
This one is so colourful. Cells are like small islands connected by man-made straight bridges. http://uploadpie.com/dPHno |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:36:47 -
[138] - Quote
Rakin o'Dubois wrote:I got the exact same image and totally agree with your classification. I did the same. I wonder how much screwed the baseline is due to the community consensus approach. Is there anything known on how they avoid those effects? Cheers Rakin
Sorry about that, it's a known error that we will correct asap. |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:38:26 -
[139] - Quote
Lovely sample! We don't have ciliated cells (unfortunately), so what you see here are membrane protrusions (which is really unusual to find, most cell membrane stainings don't have them). |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:39:56 -
[140] - Quote
Azuriel wrote:Project Discovery, Please confirm that I was wrong on this classification. I put cytoskeleton (cytokinetic bridge) because to the top right of the bottom-most cell I clearly see one. Let me know if my eyes are playing tricks. http://uploadpie.com/HmEUW Thanks
Memphis was spot on with the explanation! (also the image link expired, you might wanna consider using imgur or puush instead? I had a look at it a few days ago though) |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:47:02 -
[141] - Quote
Hm, do I understand it right that the classification was supposed to be nucleoplasm+ER? That's odd, because it should only be ER. I've submitted it to have the nuc removed (and add variations).
It should only be ER as the weak nuclear staining that can be seen is due to background bleedthrough from ER below the nucleus. The green in the nucleus is way to weak to be a true nuclear staining. |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:48:46 -
[142] - Quote
Yllej Gniht wrote:Image no. 100000325Classification Result says: "Nuclear Speckles"; it sure looks like "Nucleoplasm" to me. What's the deal here? Is this faint variation enough to declassify it as "nucleoplasm" and flag it as "nuclear speckles"? If so, some explaining text would be appreciated with those very hard to understand "teaching moments". Thank you! :)
This is also one of the known errors, it should indeed be nucleoplasm and nuclear speckles (at first we thought they were mutually exclusive, which is why this one happened). It will be corrected asap. |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:51:09 -
[143] - Quote
Nucleoplasm for sure, and probably cytoplasm too. Or what part do you think was confusing? |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:54:05 -
[144] - Quote
Joe Thelere wrote:I had an image analysed by a professional today: http://imgur.com/8cy3D7m How much difference in intensity is needed to be correct with Cell-to-Cell-Variations? Or was the professional wrong?
I would be hesitant to call that variation as all strongly stained cells are in the bottom left part of the image. That makes me think it's possible (likely) that the plate was not perfectly adjusted when imaging, and that the cells were imaged at different focal planes, e.g. the stronger green ones were imaged more in the middle of the nucleus, making the staining appear stronger, and the weaker ones at higher up/lower > making the staining appear less strong.
|
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 10:58:50 -
[145] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Sample 100000440 has been defined as 100% Vesicles, and I regret not making this choice, in addition to Rods and Rings. I picked R&R because I saw a few rod-like structures... am I completely wrong, or could this sample contain both R&R and Vesicles? Must complete ring structures be present, in samples with R&R? I've marked the BG views with arrows. Area 1 BG -- RGB || Area 2 BG -- RGBSample 100000264 has been defined as 100% Cytoplasm, but I wonder what the structures that seem to outline some parts of the cells might be, marked with arrows in my Green-only screenshot. I thought they might represent a plasma membrane. 100000264 Green -- 100000264 RGB
The first image was a really tricky sample, and I agree it kinda looks like R&R, but not really. Some type of vesicles have this elongated pattern that you can see here. We'll try to remove it from the training set.
For the second image, I see what you mean, but I don't think it's plasma membrane. The cells you look at is a type of brain cell (called U-251 MG), which is known for having what (at least we call) "membrane blebbing", which is that kind of thick edge at the membrane. If you toggle red/green on off you'd likely see a good overlap of the red/green, although the red might be weaker there. |
|
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 11:02:40 -
[146] - Quote
Selphentine wrote:http://i.imgur.com/1jGFchx.jpg
Im by far noone that claims professionals are wrong, and i understand a lot of me seeing not the right things in PD, but im very, very sure that nucleoli shouldnt be wrong here.
Thanks for noticing, will be fixed! |
Joe Thelere
Space Colony Synergy of Steel
1
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 11:41:30 -
[147] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Joe Thelere wrote:I had an image analysed by a professional today: http://imgur.com/8cy3D7m How much difference in intensity is needed to be correct with Cell-to-Cell-Variations? Or was the professional wrong? I would be hesitant to call that variation as all strongly stained cells are in the bottom left part of the image. That makes me think it's possible (likely) that the plate was not perfectly adjusted when imaging, and that the cells were imaged at different focal planes, e.g. the stronger green ones were imaged more in the middle of the nucleus, making the staining appear stronger, and the weaker ones at higher up/lower > making the staining appear less strong.
Thanks for the explanation.
But for me it raises a problem: How can I decide if the visible varaitions in the staining are a result of the technical imaging-process or the staining itself? |
HPA Illuminator
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 11:53:56 -
[148] - Quote
Joe Thelere wrote:HPA Illuminator wrote:Joe Thelere wrote:I had an image analysed by a professional today: http://imgur.com/8cy3D7m How much difference in intensity is needed to be correct with Cell-to-Cell-Variations? Or was the professional wrong? I would be hesitant to call that variation as all strongly stained cells are in the bottom left part of the image. That makes me think it's possible (likely) that the plate was not perfectly adjusted when imaging, and that the cells were imaged at different focal planes, e.g. the stronger green ones were imaged more in the middle of the nucleus, making the staining appear stronger, and the weaker ones at higher up/lower > making the staining appear less strong. Thanks for the explanation. But for me it raises a problem: How can I decide if the visible varaitions in the staining are a result of the technical imaging-process or the staining itself?
If you see a certain variation pattern only in part of the image, I wouldn't trust it. But, for the image you posted, if there had been a strong nucleus in eg upper right corner, it would be much more trustworthy. You can also turn on the red to see whether it looks similar for all cells - are the cells looking ok, or do some have granular red pattern, or look weird in some way? (>> don't trust them). By using the red channel you can also more easily tell whether the focal plane for the different cells seems to be similar.
For other variation patterns, eg if you have nucleus + nucleoli in lower left part of the image, but only nucleus for the rest, I would classify it as variations (as long as it's more than 1 cell - "1 cell is no cell") as it could be that very few cells show that variation, or that the difference in focal plane makes the nucleoli not visible in part ot the image.
Does it make more sense? |
Svarii
Acclimatization
83
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 04:19:51 -
[149] - Quote
Test Sample#: 100000406
Why is the cytokinetic bridge option wrong on this sample? It doesn't look wrong...
Test Sample # 100000406: http://i.imgur.com/Y3sUHSH.png cytokinetic bridge circled: http://i.imgur.com/ZIbexUa.png
I don't mind my accuracy going down (or not going up) if I screw it up, but not when I'm right. Can someone explain to me why cytokinetic bridge is not a correct answer here?
Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
|
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
26
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 04:37:55 -
[150] - Quote
Svarii wrote:Test Sample#: 100000406 Why is the cytokinetic bridge option wrong on this sample? It doesn't look wrong... Test Sample # 100000406: http://i.imgur.com/Y3sUHSH.png cytokinetic bridge circled: http://i.imgur.com/ZIbexUa.pngI don't mind my accuracy going down (or not going up) if I screw it up, but not when I'm right. Can someone explain to me why cytokinetic bridge is not a correct answer here?
There is a great cytokinetic bridge there!! However it isn't glowing green and that's what you're looking for. They use dye that bonds to different parts of the cell, so don't pick something if it isn't bright green. |
|
Svarii
Acclimatization
83
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 05:39:13 -
[151] - Quote
Galaxxis wrote:Svarii wrote:Test Sample#: 100000406 Why is the cytokinetic bridge option wrong on this sample? It doesn't look wrong... Test Sample # 100000406: http://i.imgur.com/Y3sUHSH.png cytokinetic bridge circled: http://i.imgur.com/ZIbexUa.pngI don't mind my accuracy going down (or not going up) if I screw it up, but not when I'm right. Can someone explain to me why cytokinetic bridge is not a correct answer here? There is a great cytokinetic bridge there!! However it isn't glowing green and that's what you're looking for. They use dye that bonds to different parts of the cell, so don't pick something if it isn't bright green.
Okay, I see it now. The example is a bit yellow because of the green staining while the cytokinetic bridge I saw is just red since it's not stained at all.
Thanks!
Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
|
Cytherea Deesse
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 10:22:27 -
[152] - Quote
I'm unsure if this is a cytokinetic bridge the green dots in the red marker cause the few times I have gotten cytokinetic it has been bright red bridges.
http://imgur.com/BMWZyoo
|
Tisiphone Dira
WiNGSPAN Academy for Enterprising Pilots
717
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 10:56:17 -
[153] - Quote
A rather odd cell |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
31
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 20:40:03 -
[154] - Quote
Tisiphone Dira wrote:A rather odd celle: Oh and thank you project discovery for helping me realize my dream of crafting the most beautiful character in all new eden.
It's smiling at us. Back away slowly...
Also, you look like you were stitched together from a zombie's butt skin!! |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
31
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 20:42:39 -
[155] - Quote
Cytherea Deesse wrote:I'm unsure if this is a cytokinetic bridge the green dots in the red marker cause the few times I have gotten cytokinetic it has been bright red bridges. http://imgur.com/BMWZyoo
I'm pretty sure it's cytokinetic bridge, since there are two of them both with that same green glob of ink. Not sure why it would look like that. |
Sp3ktr3
Unicorn Rampage
17
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 04:43:46 -
[156] - Quote
Found it. |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Violence of Action.
1534
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 12:31:10 -
[157] - Quote
It's all just coloured blobs to me ..
|
Raven Dallacort
School of Mabon Guardians of the Morrigan
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.11 16:33:09 -
[158] - Quote
I think there's an error on the classification for your control sample.
http://i.imgur.com/pWNR1bC.png
Thanks for your time. |
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
99
|
Posted - 2016.04.12 11:46:35 -
[159] - Quote
I have no idea how some people are selecting a few of their answers in PD. It's annoying because I'll select features that are very clearly present, but no one else selected that feature type and I then get dinged a few pecent. I'm like WTH?
I still like the idea of PD but it's annoying my ratings are affected because others aren't thorough. |
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
238
|
Posted - 2016.04.12 12:13:54 -
[160] - Quote
I've Stickied this thread. Keep Up the good work.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
|
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
29
|
Posted - 2016.04.12 14:51:18 -
[161] - Quote
Thanks for reporting, will look into it! |
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
29
|
Posted - 2016.04.12 14:53:54 -
[162] - Quote
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:I have no idea how some people are selecting a few of their answers in PD. It's annoying because I'll select features that are very clearly present, but no one else selected that feature type and I then get dinged a few pecent. I'm like WTH?
I still like the idea of PD but it's annoying my ratings are affected because others aren't thorough.
Consensus no longer affects accuracy rating in PD, it's only based on your coherence of control samples (of which a few, unfortunately, are incorrect atm).
If you come across control images that you disagree with, an imgur album collection is highly appreciated by us at HPA.
If you disagree with other peoples choices, the ingame chat is great for discussion about samples ("Project Discovery").
o/ |
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2016.04.14 20:38:01 -
[163] - Quote
Quote:Consensus no longer affects accuracy rating in PD, it's only based on your coherence of control samples (of which a few, unfortunately, are incorrect atm).
Cool, I was posting on a different thread and didn't see any acknowledgement of the incorrect control samples there, so I'm glad to see it here.
Is it going to be possible to get a SOE Titan with cell samples as a skin with enough Analysis Kredits? |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
32
|
Posted - 2016.04.16 20:34:04 -
[164] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/QKvGmwK.jpg
It looks like paintball splats. |
Ristari
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 21:15:43 -
[165] - Quote
http://imgur.com/bLeQJPR
Cell division in metaphase/anaphase with the centrosomes lighting up. Thought this was a kind of cool find!
Would also like to take a moment to ask about the considerations you take when looking at nuclear staining, and this image happens to also contain what I've been thinking about for a while. In this image, you can clearly see that there's a difference in attenuation where the nucleoli are. It's very clear cut, and the attenuation difference matches the "holes" in the blue filter nucleus perfectly. The cytoplasm is however lighting up fairly well in this image too, and because of this, the nucleoli would appear to stain as well, since you have cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus. For this sample a lot of people went for nucleus. Nobody went for nucleoplasm. I'm thinking it's because the aforementioned "depth issues" causes confusion. Or am I getting this wrong?
Here's an image of the green filter:
http://imgur.com/JnfSGYL
While feeling pretty confident about the nucleoplasm staining, I was also thinking maybe there's no nuclear staining at all, like, maybe the difference in attenuation is due to the membrane lighting up? Or if I spot these nucleoli having a different attenuation compared to the surroundings, can I always be sure that the nucleoplasm is stained?
Sorry for the wall of text. Appreciate any input. |
Ristari
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.18 21:29:14 -
[166] - Quote
Can sort of feel the panic in that image. The cells are ripped off the peaceful culture dish they grew up on and smeared on a dark and sterile glass slide. They're frantically reaching out for their loved ones in their moment of death. "Moooom!!! Hellllp!" "A431!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!" |
Raven Dallacort
School of Mabon Guardians of the Morrigan
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.21 15:51:06 -
[167] - Quote
Could we take a look at this control sample as well please.
http://imgur.com/vqg6EmT
I believe both should be the correct answer. |
Red Yxa
Freedom Buildiers Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.23 16:00:54 -
[168] - Quote
I think there should be some second answer http://imgur.com/357Bguq |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
36
|
Posted - 2016.04.23 16:04:46 -
[169] - Quote
No. |
Ristari
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.04.25 07:12:17 -
[170] - Quote
http://imgur.com/bvSxTO1
Cells exploding, burning, leaving trails of smoke... There's even a couple with bullet holes (0,1400-¦m Howitzer Artillery?). This is EVE! Just look at it. You can hear it too, can't you? "The fibroblast is primary! I repeat, the fibroblast is primary!" "Overheat ribosomes... vesicles! NOW!" "Plasma membrane down! PODOCYTE HIM!"
Ahem. |
|
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
29
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 13:32:13 -
[171] - Quote
Raven Dallacort wrote:Could we take a look at this control sample as well please. http://imgur.com/vqg6EmT I believe both should be the correct answer.
There's an ongoing discussion in the group how to deal with nuclear speckles vs. nucleoplasm. We're leaning towards that when nuclear speckles are this dominant, one should not choose nucleus/nucleoplasm as well. |
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
29
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 13:35:49 -
[172] - Quote
Ristari wrote:http://imgur.com/bLeQJPR Cell division in metaphase/anaphase with the centrosomes lighting up. Thought this was a kind of cool find! Would also like to take a moment to ask about the considerations you take when looking at nuclear staining, and this image happens to also contain what I've been thinking about for a while. In this image, you can clearly see that there's a difference in attenuation where the nucleoli are. It's very clear cut, and the attenuation difference matches the "holes" in the blue filter nucleus perfectly. The cytoplasm is however lighting up fairly well in this image too, and because of this, the nucleoli would appear to stain as well, since you have cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus. For this sample a lot of people went for nucleus. Nobody went for nucleoplasm. I'm thinking it's because the aforementioned "depth issues" causes confusion. Or am I getting this wrong? Here's an image of the green filter: http://imgur.com/JnfSGYL While feeling pretty confident about the nucleoplasm staining, I was also thinking maybe there's no nuclear staining at all, like, maybe the difference in attenuation is due to the membrane lighting up? Or if I spot these nucleoli having a different attenuation compared to the surroundings, can I always be sure that the nucleoplasm is stained? Sorry for the wall of text. Appreciate any input.
It's a bit late in the day, so I'm likely missing some aspects of your comment. But, if it was a nuclear staining, I'd absolutely say it was nucleoplasm and not nucleus. However, I'm not convinced it's really a nuclear staining, as it's just one cell with clear holes for nucleoli, which leads me to believe that it's likely a bleedthrough from the nuclear membrane (and some "background" staining). |
Taira Arois
Arois Family Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.01 00:15:34 -
[173] - Quote
It seems that control sample 100455950 has been mislabled. The correct answer was Nuclear bodies (few) but there are more than 5 spots in every cell. This probably needs to be changed to Nuclear bodies (many). |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
45
|
Posted - 2016.05.01 17:02:38 -
[174] - Quote
Taira Arois wrote:It seems that control sample 100455950 has been mislabled. The correct answer was Nuclear bodies (few) but there are more than 5 spots in every cell. This probably needs to be changed to Nuclear bodies (many).
That's a problem with a lot of these. I've seen plenty of slides with one or two nuclear bodies in some and a bunch in others. Even if you select cell-to-cell variations you can only pick one of them, so which do you go with? Most of these have the community split down the middle as well. Is there a good reason to separate these? Couldn't this just be one button for "nuclear bodies"? |
Aeligos
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 02:10:49 -
[175] - Quote
Any chance we can get PD on our mobile devices?
Also, is there any way miners can contribute to PD? Ice, asteroids, can contain unique samples that can be uploaded to the PD database. The miner thus providing unique contributions to the cause. Would be kinda neat imo.
libera te tvtemet ex inferis
A.'.A.'.
|
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
30
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 11:25:43 -
[176] - Quote
Taira Arois wrote:It seems that control sample 100455950 has been mislabled. The correct answer was Nuclear bodies (few) but there are more than 5 spots in every cell. This probably needs to be changed to Nuclear bodies (many).
Please report in to this reddit thread, where we try collect everything:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4gtoyg/project_discovery_collecting_incorrect_control/ |
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
30
|
Posted - 2016.05.02 11:30:29 -
[177] - Quote
Galaxxis wrote:Taira Arois wrote:It seems that control sample 100455950 has been mislabled. The correct answer was Nuclear bodies (few) but there are more than 5 spots in every cell. This probably needs to be changed to Nuclear bodies (many). That's a problem with a lot of these. I've seen plenty of slides with one or two nuclear bodies in some and a bunch in others. Even if you select cell-to-cell variations you can only pick one of them, so which do you go with? Most of these have the community split down the middle as well. Is there a good reason to separate these? Couldn't this just be one button for "nuclear bodies"?
Nuclear bodies is one category where you're really helping us, as we've only said "nuclear bodies" internally, and it's a quite recent category, so we've probably missed out on a lot of samples! Getting out information on many/few is super useful for us! So if there are samples where ppl vote 50/50 it will be interesting for us to look at those (nuclear bodies might eg. correspond to DNA damage site, binding to certain DNA regions etc, so it's not surprising that they may differ between cells).
As for which category to go for... I'd go for the dominant one (most cells). If it's really 50/50, I'd chose many, as the NB are really small, so the reason for just seeing a few in some cells might be due to focus being slightly off (but if you go for few, it's not a problem!).
|
Kolmogorow
Freedom Resources
77
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 20:44:14 -
[178] - Quote
This image had quite a low consensus and I was very unsure how to classify it as well. First thought was: Mitochondria, but it doesn't look very "thread-like", at least I had seen images that looked quite more clearly like Mitochondria. For ER which was another possible choice it didn't look enough to me like a "spider web". Decided just for cytoplasm at the end but I'm not convinced at all. Hmmmm, what is it actually? |
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
32
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 18:41:13 -
[179] - Quote
Kolmogorow wrote:This image had quite a low consensus and I was very unsure how to classify it as well. First thought was: Mitochondria, but it doesn't look very "thread-like", at least I had seen images that looked quite more clearly like Mitochondria. For ER which was another possible choice it didn't look enough to me like a "spider web". Decided just for cytoplasm at the end but I'm not convinced at all. Hmmmm, what is it actually?
It's kinda hard to tell with all colors (do you have green only?) but Im thinking mitochondria. |
Kolmogorow
Freedom Resources
77
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 20:20:41 -
[180] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Kolmogorow wrote:This image had quite a low consensus and I was very unsure how to classify it as well. First thought was: Mitochondria, but it doesn't look very "thread-like", at least I had seen images that looked quite more clearly like Mitochondria. For ER which was another possible choice it didn't look enough to me like a "spider web". Decided just for cytoplasm at the end but I'm not convinced at all. Hmmmm, what is it actually? It's kinda hard to tell with all colors (do you have green only?) but Im thinking mitochondria.
Don't have the green only image anymore, but on a second look I believe as well that Mitochondria would have been the better choice. Thanks for the feedback!
|
|
etgfrogs
Frog Evade
2
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 05:30:30 -
[181] - Quote
The most obvious cell to cell variation Ends up being 18% community consensus on cell the cell variation. |
HPA Dichroic
Polaris Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 10:35:20 -
[182] - Quote
Hmmm, that is an obvious one! Do you have the image ID? I'd love to know what that protein's job is biologically.
I know the community seems to shy away from CCD, and that 's largely our fault since we don't train it very well as we haven't been annotating it in the past. Fear not though! I am currently working on an optimized cut-off for each class for the statistical significance required to consider a response. This should help with general community bias such as over-annotation of cytoplasm and under-annotation of CCD.
Keep marking em! o7 |
Kolmogorow
Freedom Resources
78
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 11:24:21 -
[183] - Quote
Yesterday I had my first clear centrosome image (mainly double-dots, but in some cells only one dot)! They seem to be quite rare. One question about them: I've read on Wikipedia that the centrosome "serves as the main microtubule organizing center (MTOC)". But in PD there is also the "microtubule organizing center" as a separate image classification (more a diffuse ball rather than one or two sharp dots). Hence I thought centrosome and MTOC would be two different biological objects. Are they actually the same organelle and only the green staining is sometimes sharp and sometimes diffuse for some reason?
|
etgfrogs
Frog Evade
2
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 20:28:37 -
[184] - Quote
HPA Dichroic wrote:Hmmm, that is an obvious one! Do you have the image ID? I'd love to know what that protein's job is biologically.
I know the community seems to shy away from CCD, and that 's largely our fault since we don't train it very well as we haven't been annotating it in the past. Fear not though! I am currently working on an optimized cut-off for each class for the statistical significance required to consider a response. This should help with general community bias such as over-annotation of cytoplasm and under-annotation of CCD.
Keep marking em! o7 I cant find how to get the image ID. I've found nothing on reddit, I'm not getting a response in game. I keep feeling like it is a simple answer. |
HPA Dichroic
Polaris Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 09:31:37 -
[185] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:I think the classification of this image is wrong. It is not Nucleus. It should be Mitochondria.
This image has been correct in-game. Sorry it took so long to get a system in place for updating these, they should go faster in the future. Thanks for your feedback! |
HPA Dichroic
Polaris Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 09:36:37 -
[186] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:I've heard that some images was analyzed by professionals? screenshot
This has now been officially updated in-game. We now have a system, so updates should happen faster. Thanks for the help and keep em coming! |
HPA Dichroic
Polaris Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 09:41:37 -
[187] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:In this classification result, I realized I was wrong about Cytoplasm for so many cases.
This has now been officially updated in-game. We now have a system, so updates should happen faster. Thanks for the help and keep em coming! |
Shiverwarpz
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 17:04:57 -
[188] - Quote
I've had a couple tough classifications in a row now. This one http://i.imgur.com/xElpvSz.png (100457139)
in particular had me questioning myself. I've always had trouble with cytoskeleton intermediate filaments VS Endoplasmic reticulum, but never the cytoskeleton microtubules. What exactly makes this one microtubules over the filaments? (The cytokinetic bridge is pretty obvious here)
And while I'm on the subject, the classification I had a few slides before, had me questioning between cell junctions and focal adhesions. How can I more clearly make that distinction? If that classification is correct, then sometimes cell junctions can appear even when not next to another cell (Just black space on the slide) |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
111
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 21:25:08 -
[189] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/FmMBfrk.jpg
This one has little stringy things all over the place that look like mitochondria, but it's tagged as vesicles. |
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
32
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 20:03:15 -
[190] - Quote
What you see here is actually a certain type of vesicles called peroxisomes, so the control is right.
If you find control images that you think are incorrect, it would be great if you could make a post in this reddit thread.
o7 |
|
HPA Illuminator
The Human Protein Atlas
32
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 20:12:56 -
[191] - Quote
Shiverwarpz wrote:I've had a couple tough classifications in a row now. This one http://i.imgur.com/xElpvSz.png (100457139) in particular had me questioning myself. I've always had trouble with cytoskeleton intermediate filaments VS Endoplasmic reticulum, but never the cytoskeleton microtubules. What exactly makes this one microtubules over the filaments? (The cytokinetic bridge is pretty obvious here) And while I'm on the subject, the classification I had a few slides before, had me questioning between cell junctions and focal adhesions. How can I more clearly make that distinction? If that classification is correct, then sometimes cell junctions can appear even when not next to another cell (Just black space on the slide)
Sorry for the late reply, didn't see this until now!
If you would toggle the green/red on/off you would see that there is a perfect overlap of individual strands which would lead one to the conclusion of microtubules.
Cell junctions should only appear where two cells are touching each other, not when there's black next to the cells. Focals would normally appear somewhat under the cell, not just at/outside the edge of it (and they can appear regardless whether the cell has neighbors or not).
The reddit subthread https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectDiscovery/ is a great place for asking questions. Also, our PD classes (first at youtube and second/third at twitch (until 20160606) might be helpful!).
EDIT: LOL, didn't see the name first. Guessing you can probably ignore most of this after our posts on reddit :) |
Galaxxis
Unicorn Rampage
113
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 21:45:54 -
[192] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:What you see here is actually a certain type of vesicles called peroxisomes, so the control is right. If you find control images that you think are incorrect, it would be great if you could make a post in this reddit thread. o7
Oh cool! Thanks for the info. |
Shiverwarpz
Wormbro
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.25 22:59:43 -
[193] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:Sorry for the late reply, didn't see this until now! If you would toggle the green/red on/off you would see that there is a perfect overlap of individual strands which would lead one to the conclusion of microtubules. Cell junctions should only appear where two cells are touching each other, not when there's black next to the cells. Focals would normally appear somewhat under the cell, not just at/outside the edge of it (and they can appear regardless whether the cell has neighbors or not). The reddit subthread https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectDiscovery/ is a great place for asking questions. Also, our PD classes (first at youtube and second/ third at twitch (until 20160606) might be helpful!). EDIT: LOL, didn't see the name first. Guessing you can probably ignore most of this after our posts on reddit :)
Hahaha, yeah, this was my very first post when getting into Project Discovery. Learned a lot since then! |
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
294
|
Posted - 2016.05.28 14:45:08 -
[194] - Quote
I'll bring this over from the other thread in the Information Center
Joia Crenca wrote:I noticed that some of the Classification Samples are a bit questionable, still. I guess someone is noticing when one comes up with a large 'incorrect' percentage as pertains to players trying to identify it? Also, when do I get my certificate of cell sample mastery from the University of Reykjavik?
I guess I need to go check Reddit myself. Is CCP finished with any further work on the mini-game? The reason I ask is I'm wondering if more helpful information could be a part of the module itself?
Thanks folks!
|
HPA Illuminator
H P A C C P Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2016.05.31 07:49:39 -
[195] - Quote
Joia Crenca wrote:I'll bring this over from the other thread in the Information Center Joia Crenca wrote:I noticed that some of the Classification Samples are a bit questionable, still. I guess someone is noticing when one comes up with a large 'incorrect' percentage as pertains to players trying to identify it? Also, when do I get my certificate of cell sample mastery from the University of Reykjavik? I guess I need to go check Reddit myself. Is CCP finished with any further work on the mini-game? The reason I ask is I'm wondering if more helpful information could be a part of the module itself? Thanks folks!
We're really dependent on your input for finding questionable control images, so please report them at the reddit thread I mentioned a few posts ago.
Hehe, certficates do sound like a nice idea (although guess it might be us at KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) here in Stockholm that are responsible for the science part).
I don't know if they are finished, but feedback is always appreciated. There are some PD threads here at the EVE forum where people have been commenting on it earlier, but I think they've been quiet for a month or so now at least. |
Ashlar Maidstone
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
238
|
Posted - 2016.06.01 05:09:40 -
[196] - Quote
Hi, I just started today Project Discovery and so far made it to rank 4! My question is how long will this be available because this is something I been wanting to do since it was introduced earlier this year. And will there be more projects like this? Thank you |
HPA Illuminator
H P A C C P Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2016.06.03 09:27:09 -
[197] - Quote
Ashlar Maidstone wrote:Hi, I just started today Project Discovery and so far made it to rank 4! My question is how long will this be available because this is something I been wanting to do since it was introduced earlier this year. And will there be more projects like this? Thank you
Yay, welcome to PD! (in case you haven't come across them there's a PD subreddit, an awesome ingame chat channel (search for Project Discovery) - great for asking questions about difficult images, and also a slack channel)
CCP has said that PD will be around as long as it's popular, so hopefully that means for a long time :)
As for more projects like this, I don't know. That's up to CCP.
Hope you'll enjoy it (and let us know if you have questions :)) o/ |
William Weatherwax
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
20
|
Posted - 2016.06.06 15:50:40 -
[198] - Quote
Kolmogorow wrote:Yesterday I had my first clear centrosome image (mainly double-dots, but in some cells only one dot)! They seem to be quite rare. One question about them: I've read on Wikipedia that the centrosome "serves as the main microtubule organizing center (MTOC)". But in PD there is also the "microtubule organizing center" as a separate image classification (more a diffuse ball rather than one or two sharp dots). Hence I thought centrosome and MTOC would be two different biological objects. Are they actually the same organelle and only the green staining is sometimes sharp and sometimes diffuse for some reason?
Hi Kolmogorow,
the centrosome is both. In the beginning it will be a ball but once the cell division starts it will separate and each part will migrate to the opposite poles of the cell. While doing this they are connected by the microtubuli. |
HPA Illuminator
H P A C C P Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 13:41:05 -
[199] - Quote
William Weatherwax wrote:Kolmogorow wrote:Yesterday I had my first clear centrosome image (mainly double-dots, but in some cells only one dot)! They seem to be quite rare. One question about them: I've read on Wikipedia that the centrosome "serves as the main microtubule organizing center (MTOC)". But in PD there is also the "microtubule organizing center" as a separate image classification (more a diffuse ball rather than one or two sharp dots). Hence I thought centrosome and MTOC would be two different biological objects. Are they actually the same organelle and only the green staining is sometimes sharp and sometimes diffuse for some reason?
Hi Kolmogorow, the centrosome is both. In the beginning it will be a ball but once the cell division starts it will separate and each part will migrate to the opposite poles of the cell. While doing this they are connected by the microtubuli.
That was a great reply!
I just want to add that MTOC differs from centrosomes (since we can't distinguish the individual centrosome/s), so it could be e.g. a protein in the pericentriolar matrix which is surrounding the centrosome, or vesicles that are clustering around the centrosomes.
|
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
343
|
Posted - 2016.07.16 05:18:49 -
[200] - Quote
I'm actually still doing this Project. I'll have to check whether the last update I've seen to the ranks coincides with reward updates. (I'm sitting on a lot of Analysis Kredits, lol) |
|
Cyrano Garjuiji
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.01 17:06:56 -
[201] - Quote
I probably should have uploaded these here sooner. just found this thread and reminded me of some interrresting screenshots I took.
can anyone tell me what those "things" are?
http://i.imgur.com/8mdaZPv.png
and
http://i.imgur.com/rSEyqWD.png
sorry for not keeping the number tho. |
HPA Illuminator
H P A C C P Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 06:51:37 -
[202] - Quote
What you see there is a cell undergoing cell division (mitosis). The chromosomes (DNA, blue) have duplicated and condensed and lined up next to each other. The microtubules (red) have disassembled to form the mitotic spindle (red), which will attach to sites on the chromosomes and will pull them apart with the help of centrosomes. This will result in two (small) daughter cells that each have a copy of the DNA. After division they don't immediately detach, but are sort of stuck together (via the cytokinetic bridge), before cut off at the cytokinetic bridge cleavage site.
In the first image it seems like there's some green staining overlapping with the red, which would suggest that the protein might help out with the pulling apart of the chromosomes. The second image seems to show an overlap with blue and green, possibly indicating a DNA-binding protein. |
Cyrano Garjuiji
Into The Fray. FREE GATES COALITION
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.02 09:24:38 -
[203] - Quote
HPA Illuminator wrote:What you see there is a cell undergoing cell division (mitosis). The chromosomes (DNA, blue) have duplicated and condensed and lined up next to each other. The microtubules (red) have disassembled to form the mitotic spindle (red), which will attach to sites on the chromosomes and will pull them apart with the help of centrosomes. This will result in two (small) daughter cells that each have a copy of the DNA. After division they don't immediately detach, but are sort of stuck together (via the cytokinetic bridge), before cut off at the cytokinetic bridge cleavage site. In the first image it seems like there's some green staining overlapping with the red, which would suggest that the protein might help out with the pulling apart of the chromosomes. The second image seems to show an overlap with blue and green, possibly indicating a DNA-binding protein. Thank you for the explanation. |
Cyrano Garjuiji
Into The Fray. FREE GATES COALITION
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 18:21:28 -
[204] - Quote
Sample 100456307 clearly has 2 bridges answer atleast partially incorrect.
http://i.imgur.com/KxVICk4.png
|
HPA Illuminator
H P A C C P Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2016.09.22 10:49:57 -
[205] - Quote
Yes, but the cytokinetic bridges are only seen in the red channel, not the green, and should thus not be labeled. |
Mariones Moliko
DRUCKWELLE Evolution
1
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 14:44:57 -
[206] - Quote
When we get an update (new features or rewards) for PD? |
Scatch Domination
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.21 13:51:02 -
[207] - Quote
I'm really afraid of my choices, at least for the cell variations.
http://i.imgur.com/p6v3wB2.png zoomed: http://i.imgur.com/8vn1EHY.png
So bridges can only happen in the red channel, "never ever" in the green? |
Matthias Ancaladron
Hedion University Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 04:58:38 -
[208] - Quote
I started playing this game but i was curious how um do you find a sistsrs of eve loyalty store? Do i have to go all the way to thera? I was thinking about grinding out one or two of those combat suits. One to keep and one to sell, |
Matthias Khenakhtre
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
314
|
Posted - 2016.11.26 04:58:38 -
[209] - Quote
I started playing this game but i was curious how um do you find a sistsrs of eve loyalty store? Do i have to go all the way to thera? I was thinking about grinding out one or two of those combat suits. One to keep and one to sell, |
Memphis Baas
2354
|
Posted - 2016.11.29 19:05:00 -
[210] - Quote
Simplest way is to open the Agent Finder app in-game and search for a Sisters of EVE (corporation) agent. You can then see where their stations are.
I know a popular location is Arnon, where the Sisters of EVE Epic Arc starts, they have a station there. Gicodel, also, they have some agents there.
All you need is to find an SoE station, so you can click the LP Store button inside it. They have them in a bunch of places in high-sec, low-sec, and null.
EDIT: Also, the combat suits cannot be sold on the market, but they are available in the Contracts system for about 60 million ISK apiece, not bad. There's just a bug in their name that doesn't let you actually search the contracts interface for them; you have to set your Contract interface to show you Apparel, Outer Apparel, and then scroll down until you see the suits, male or female.
60 million ISK, as of yesterday. LP cost = 75,000 Project Discovery AK points + 37.5 million ISK. If you're starting Project Discovery from level 0, it'll take a while to get the AK points, as they are only rewarded as you level up, and only a few at a time. |
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Hedion University Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2016.11.30 23:20:17 -
[211] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Simplest way is to open the Agent Finder app in-game and search for a Sisters of EVE (corporation) agent. You can then see where their stations are.
I know a popular location is Arnon, where the Sisters of EVE Epic Arc starts, they have a station there. Gicodel, also, they have some agents there.
All you need is to find an SoE station, so you can click the LP Store button inside it. They have them in a bunch of places in high-sec, low-sec, and null.
EDIT: Also, the combat suits cannot be sold on the market, but they are available in the Contracts system for about 60 million ISK apiece, not bad. There's just a bug in their name that doesn't let you actually search the contracts interface for them; you have to set your Contract interface to show you Apparel, Outer Apparel, and then scroll down until you see the suits, male or female.
60 million ISK, as of yesterday. LP cost = 75,000 Project Discovery AK points + 37.5 million ISK. If you're starting Project Discovery from level 0, it'll take a while to get the AK points, as they are only rewarded as you level up, and only a few at a time. Yeah i thought they were more than that. Ill just keep it. i was looking around and i thought they were worth alot more. Ill just use the geno suit till i can get one for myself. And maybe a wirepoise facial implant. I think i like thst one the most from the previews ive seen on actual characters and not the silver heads. But i guess i could always trade it for another one if someone wants the one i have and i want a different one.
Ill look that up. I was looking up stations manually online and think the closest one I ound is 10-20 jumps away from where ive been hanging around. Dont remember how far off the top of my head. But im still a good ways off. I only have 15k ak at the momebt, i usually do them while im warping. |
Matthias Khenakhtre
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
314
|
Posted - 2016.11.30 23:20:17 -
[212] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Simplest way is to open the Agent Finder app in-game and search for a Sisters of EVE (corporation) agent. You can then see where their stations are.
I know a popular location is Arnon, where the Sisters of EVE Epic Arc starts, they have a station there. Gicodel, also, they have some agents there.
All you need is to find an SoE station, so you can click the LP Store button inside it. They have them in a bunch of places in high-sec, low-sec, and null.
EDIT: Also, the combat suits cannot be sold on the market, but they are available in the Contracts system for about 60 million ISK apiece, not bad. There's just a bug in their name that doesn't let you actually search the contracts interface for them; you have to set your Contract interface to show you Apparel, Outer Apparel, and then scroll down until you see the suits, male or female.
60 million ISK, as of yesterday. LP cost = 75,000 Project Discovery AK points + 37.5 million ISK. If you're starting Project Discovery from level 0, it'll take a while to get the AK points, as they are only rewarded as you level up, and only a few at a time. Yeah i thought they were more than that. Ill just keep it. i was looking around and i thought they were worth alot more. Ill just use the geno suit till i can get one for myself. And maybe a wirepoise facial implant. I think i like thst one the most from the previews ive seen on actual characters and not the silver heads. But i guess i could always trade it for another one if someone wants the one i have and i want a different one.
Ill look that up. I was looking up stations manually online and think the closest one I ound is 10-20 jumps away from where ive been hanging around. Dont remember how far off the top of my head. But im still a good ways off. I only have 15k ak at the momebt, i usually do them while im warping. |
Memphis Baas
2378
|
Posted - 2016.12.01 14:38:31 -
[213] - Quote
Yeah there were lots of people who were really interested in helping out Project Discovery, much like everyone is into helping out Alphas right now. So they reached level 100+ and the AK rewards ramp up as you get higher level and higher accuracy. I got to about level 80 and that was 280,000 AK, almost 4 suits. So there's plenty of suits available, and anyone interested in the project can get the AK for more.
They also have that red-black "lab coat" outer, but like all outers of the same shape, it SUCKS because the character customization interface doesn't treat mini-dress + nylons/hosiery combinations as a sufficient replacement for pants. The lab coat is long enough for modesty, but the interface doesn't allow it.
I think that the white and red highlights on the SoE armor look better than the black tones of the Genolution suit, for women, especially given my (and the bleached white/blonde) hair colors that are accentuated by women's longer hair options. |
Rekalia
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.12.12 00:41:39 -
[214] - Quote
http://imgur.com/a/HP6dd
This one was pretty hard.
The one that is telling me is correct states about how it is at the edge of the blue areas.
However, these were in the center connected by a lot of red stringy bits. Was a little disappointed. But I'll keep it in mind if I come across it again. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2998
|
Posted - 2016.12.26 07:41:57 -
[215] - Quote
I see a whole lot of samples with both cytoplasm and nucleoplasm, so it looks almost like there's a really even cytoplasm extending through the whole cell, even in the blue area.
I also was noticing the actual golgi apparatuses look nothing like the example, that's when I finally realized you can mouse over the example to see three alternative examples.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Zack Zamricon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.12 17:05:33 -
[216] - Quote
Pretty much all the samples are extremely difficult, mostly due to poor labeling of a lot of small buttons with inadequate examples to distinguish one from the other.
A redesign of the interface is reccomended. |
Mariones Moliko
DRUCKWELLE Evolution
1
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:58:29 -
[217] - Quote
When we get an Update for PD? |
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
24829
|
Posted - 2017.01.28 16:14:04 -
[218] - Quote
Its a very good atlas of a cell, where you can see different parts of it if you point them with mouse. I hope it will help some people understand what is in the project discovery images.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him
Osprey =ƒÜÇ
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Raz Ohr
Beyond SpaceTime
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 17:05:11 -
[219] - Quote
Hi, it's not the first time but today I found what I think is an uncorrect classification and I want to post it to have feedbacks.
image
As highlighted there is also a cytokinetic bridge... I think this one need to be fixed
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3031
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 08:05:41 -
[220] - Quote
Raz Ohr wrote:Hi, it's not the first time but today I found what I think is an uncorrect classification and I want to post it to have feedbacks. imageAs highlighted there is also a cytokinetic bridge... I think this one need to be fixed It's not definitely a cytokinetic bridge. It could just be a conglomeration of cytoplasm stains right in that spot. Note that it doesn't fan out at its ends.
I think it is a bridge, but it's an odd one alright.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
|
Lukka
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 21:19:26 -
[221] - Quote
Raz Ohr wrote:Hi, it's not the first time but today I found what I think is an uncorrect classification and I want to post it to have feedbacks. imageAs highlighted there is also a cytokinetic bridge... I think this one need to be fixed
There are a few for which classifications are incorrect. That is almost certainly marking a cytokinetic bridge, particularly as the tethered cytoplasm can be seen to be linking the cells at this spot.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
3036
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 02:38:22 -
[222] - Quote
Here's a weird one for you guys: http://imgur.com/gallery/MBQsz
It looks like some of the cells were dissolving when the image was taken. Three of them show very little cytoplasm red staining outside their nucleus, however their nucleus is in several small pieces in a clump, with heavy green staining throughout the fragments. The rest of the cells are largely unstained with green; however one of them has a very strong vesicle stain which makes it stand out from other cells, despite its blue+red stains making it appear to match the other cells.
Scatch Domination wrote:So bridges can only happen in the red channel, "never ever" in the green?
Edit: I was also afraid of hitting "Abnormal Sample" for a sample that had scanlines in the red channel (it wasn't too impacting so i decided to not report it). Generally everything you're looking for is in the green channel. The red and blue are there to help you see where the green specks are located within the cell. If the red or blue channel show something highly abnormal, you should mark abnormal sample. That's what I did with the above sample.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Yoshi Himomura
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.26 22:43:13 -
[223] - Quote
Just found this thread, and figured I should repost from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6953050#post6953050
Essentially, I'm pretty sure that something is off on either how these are matched/graded, or how I'm understanding the exercise (despite being a generally sharp individual that has stained cells IRL before)
Images and greater explanation is in the original post. What does everyone think / what should I do? Am I just not understanding at all? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
326
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 05:34:43 -
[224] - Quote
How can this fail ? Image: http://www.netsky.org/eve/AFailedPD13072017a1.png
it should be 100% correct.
|
S1dy
Aurora Tactical Solutions Synergy of Steel
45
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 11:18:01 -
[225] - Quote
That's a Pulsar. The troughs are the regular diminishing of the pulsing star, not by a transit. A transit would cause a more rapid decrease. |
Bones Prefect
Wormholers in Highsec Wormholes United
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 13:02:28 -
[226] - Quote
https://imgur.com/a/njahu
Maybe take another look at this one? Im okay with missing the yellow one, but dayum if thats not a transit.... |
Bones Prefect
Wormholers in Highsec Wormholes United
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 13:23:57 -
[227] - Quote
Oh.. come on!
https://imgur.com/a/CVTi6 |
Vanessa Celtis
Vanessa Atalanta
27
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 19:56:39 -
[228] - Quote
Yea, I got those too, probably exactly the same ones and also failed. The first one is hilarious ! |
Jon Greyburst
Grass Fed Cannibals The Bastion
4
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 19:59:21 -
[229] - Quote
For them to be making these sort of screw ups these had to be assigned by computer rather than hand, which means that they found the dips through actual analysis and calculation. You can look at some of these and tell a human being didn't do them, they are far too obviously screwed up. If this is the case then there is no reason we should be expected to be able to eyeball their harder graphs and see them. |
Vanessa Celtis
Vanessa Atalanta
27
|
Posted - 2017.07.13 20:01:28 -
[230] - Quote
Here is another good one !
http://imgur.com/a/1mYcv |
|
Raven Dallacort
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 06:37:18 -
[231] - Quote
Not sure how I failed this one. If I get the 1st, 3rd and 5th correct, how is it possible to get the 2nd and 4th wrong?
http://imgur.com/a/7tiZ8
ID: 200109146 |
Moros Chaput
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 18:14:33 -
[232] - Quote
Raven Dallacort wrote:Not sure how I failed this one. If I get the 1st, 3rd and 5th correct, how is it possible to get the 2nd and 4th wrong? http://imgur.com/a/7tiZ8 ID: 200109146 Might be because the star is orbited by two planets and not one, although how we're supposed to tell the two apart is beyond me. Here's a similar one I encountered.
Here are some other peculiar ones I got:
Actually got one right! This one was slightly more obvious. Close miss. It's so hard to match up the transits in noisy data. Folding isn't very useful here either. Looks as though there would be another planet with a wider orbit, but I guess not.
Here's one I thought was just plain odd. Look at the width of the band: the brightness fluctuates considerably, but at the same time there are no discernible dips and the graph is relatively smooth.
I have plenty more, but I think the pattern is pretty obvious here. I'm willing to wager the dev(s) accidentally implemented some tests that just can't be solved. I doubt the scientists who actually look at this data eyeball everything and the noisy data we see here probably isn't meant to be solved through simple observation.
Although the majority of the data reveals no transits (excluding the proficiency tests), I've come across ~3 tests that have had 90%+ detection rates by the players and where the transits were very noticeable, so that's neat. It can get pretty tedious spamming the "no transit" button over and over again. |
Vanessa Celtis
Vanessa Atalanta
27
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 18:46:30 -
[233] - Quote
My stats:
- Reached level 50 and it becomes almost as AFK and repetitive.
- Accuracy Rating: 62 - 72 %, it oscillates in between those two values. As soon as I reach 73%, crap samples come in and it brings me down to 62%, then back up to 72... round and round.
- At this % level, I spam the "No Transit" button 9 times out of 10. Each 10 samples a good one come in and I can accurately analyse it.
- 1/5 a good obvious sample is thrown at me by the algorithm as poorly analysed where in fact the algorithm is junk.
So basically that's it !... Exoplanet Discovery discovered. Good luck to everybody.
I am going back top Null ratting, its more interesting and more profitable. |
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
277
|
Posted - 2017.07.14 23:52:21 -
[234] - Quote
Vanessa Celtis wrote:As soon as I reach 73%, crap samples come in You mean crap evaluation samples? I got a slight suspicion some of them are thrown in for s..its and giggles, to see if lab rats can pick up on something in a 25-day sample it would normally take 2 years worth of data to find.
Vanessa Celtis wrote:Null ratting, its more interesting ee... nope.
Vanessa Celtis wrote:more profitable. Probably. Making 100k after looking at "wtf is that" for 20 minutes is not exactly good income.
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Raven Dallacort
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 05:04:15 -
[235] - Quote
Heres another interesting fail. I don't think it's technically possible to achieve over 90% accuracy in this program, unlike the previous cell staining one.
http://imgur.com/a/2kara
ID: 200077052 |
Raven Dallacort
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
3
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 05:20:39 -
[236] - Quote
Vanessa Celtis wrote: - Accuracy Rating: 62 - 72 %, it oscillates in between those two values. As soon as I reach 73%, crap samples come in and it brings me down to 62%, then back up to 72... round and round. Sometimes its good to let it drop on purpose so that you get interesting samples. The higher the percentage accuracy the more crap samples you get (those crap samples are either noise or non-identifiable with a human eye).
I've noticed the exact same thing. I get close to 70% and then I get tossed samples that I have no clue where the transit is, so i'm continually wrong until I get closer to 60% and then it gives me samples I can "accurately" mark. Definitely something very wrong with the algorithm - it shouldn't be punishing you for being more accurate, but that's what it seems to feel like.
|
Yueh Ferrda
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 06:27:23 -
[237] - Quote
It just a big SH**. They admit it during the live but do nothing for it. |
Kevin Forrest
Yumping Amok Dot Dot Dot
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.15 08:07:46 -
[238] - Quote
I think this thing needs another wipe, but at the same time they should place a system in where you only get certain samples during every 5/10 levels, im level 63 on this atm and id love to get samples which havent been touched by a level 2 player who has no clue on what he's looking for and somehow inputs a pattern on a straight line |
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement Limited Expectations
282
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 01:07:03 -
[239] - Quote
Yueh Ferrda wrote:It just a big SH**. They admit it during the live but do nothing for it. I've decided to falsify all data and go to 0.0% as CCP want. geez.... someone ran out of Caldari Navy Fluoxetine?
Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
|
Annika Inari
Unicorn Rampage
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 06:53:19 -
[240] - Quote
The most "interesting" thing about this project is the ridiculous level of incompetence of the people making the evaluation samples. Half of them are flat-out wrong. I'm tired of being penalized because of their carelessness. |
|
Emiko P'eng
152
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 11:27:07 -
[241] - Quote
Hehe!
Just starting out, so far the only problem I had up to now is spotting the small plants.
On those I just need to get my eye in on spotting the patterns
Until I got this one?
It Does Not Like the Middle Dip?
I suppose it might be another planet but the fold looked perfect? |
Larry Fat
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.17 15:30:01 -
[242] - Quote
Okay I'll bite..
Came across this bullshit kek
All noise and a period you can't fit on screen.
ID:200060844 |
Larry Fat
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.17 18:24:55 -
[243] - Quote
This is total bullshit.
check out this wtf
Just cannot win.
ID: 200042218 |
rotoclap
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.18 21:37:51 -
[244] - Quote
My best fail ever, perfectly synchronized falses positives...
ID 200194218
|
Peace Blade
Mistress' Eternally Omniscient Wenches
1
|
Posted - 2017.07.20 13:38:26 -
[245] - Quote
Came across this one:
http://imgur.com/a/QC4Oe
The thing is, it looks more digital and artificial then natural. Almost like a signal.
Luminosity varies by 20% up and down, changes are too steep and random for a transit, too frequent and random for sunspots and too irregular for a rotating star. I guess it could be eruptive variable, but look at period between 18'th and 20'th day. It's just plain odd, considering how luminosity is otherwise relativly stable.
It could be also that the signal is glitched, either by monitoring instruments or software.
I wish i could see more of this signal, they have it recorded for longer am sure.
P.S. sadly didn't record the id :-/ |
Ghan Rotinequeq
Leviathan Rising Sarcos Federation
33
|
Posted - 2017.07.26 19:34:07 -
[246] - Quote
Why there is no option to tag those strange results of control analysis? Like it was possible in bio project?
Othervise nice project, bring more real life science ! |
Philipp Monnem
Die Verteidiger von Acolon dontPanic.
0
|
Posted - 2017.07.28 21:15:49 -
[247] - Quote
I-¦ve seen them all now I guess^^
btw...how about a honorary doctor xD
[IMG]https://s1.imagebanana.com/file/170728/thb/SvdnIeRs.png[/IMG]
|
Ghan Rotinequeq
Leviathan Rising Sarcos Federation
33
|
Posted - 2017.07.31 20:12:56 -
[248] - Quote
No way, :O |
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
139
|
Posted - 2017.08.02 07:04:51 -
[249] - Quote
http://imgur.com/a/lZscx
L0ook at it! It is PERFECT! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page] |