bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Nanni, F.

Publications and source records attributed to Nanni, F..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Assessing the potential of vision language models for automated phenotyping of Drosophila melanogaster

Model organisms such as Drosophila melanogaster are extremely well suited to performing large-scale screens, which often require the assessment of phenotypes in a target tissue (e.g., wing and eye). Currently, the annotation of defects is either performed manually, which hinders throughput and reproducibility, or based on dedicated image analysis pipelines, which are tailored to detect only specific defects. Here, we assess the potential of Vision Language Models (VLMs) to automatically detect aberrant phenotypes in a dataset of Drosophila wings and provide their descriptions. We compare the performance of one the current most advanced multimodal models (GPT-4) with an open-source alternative (LLaVA). Via a thorough quantitative evaluation, we identify strong performances in the identification of aberrant wing phenotypes when providing the VLMs with just a single reference image. GPT-4 showed the best performance in terms of generating textual descriptions, being able to correctly describe complex wing phenotypes. We also provide practical advice on potential prompting strategies and highlight current limitations of these tools, especially around misclassification and generation of false information, which should be carefully taken into consideration if these tools are used as part of an image analysis pipeline.

bioinformatics↗

Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened longstanding questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through 30th April 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

scientific communication and education↗