Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

How accurate is mechanobiology? A statistical test of cell force

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that in linear mechanobiology models with Gaussian image noise, the uncertainty of a reconstructed force map is exactly a Gaussian posterior whose covariance is the inverse Hessian of the data-plus-regularization…

desk verdict A solid Bayesian UQ framework for image-based force measurements, but the error bars cover noise and ill-posedness only, not model mismatch—conditional accept, worth reviewing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18406 v2 pith:EO6HZPPV submitted 2024-12-24 physics.bio-ph cs.CVphysics.comp-ph

Aleix Boquet-Pujadas This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcs.CVphysics.comp-ph
keywords tractionforcemicroscopyactivenematicsmeasurementuncertaintyBayesianinverseproblemsGaussianposteriorcovariancehypothesistestingp-value
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Mechanobiology routinely measures cell forces by inverting images through physical models, but those measurements almost never carry error bars. This paper argues that when the physical model is linear and the image noise Gaussian, the uncertainty of a reconstructed force map is exactly a Gaussian posterior whose covariance is the inverse Hessian of the data-plus-regularization functional. That covariance yields per-pixel credible regions and chi-squared hypothesis tests, so questions such as "did the force pattern change after this event?" or "is this patch of force real?" get a p-value. The construction is demonstrated on traction force microscopy and active-nematic imaging, and the same scheme is claimed to cover many other image-based mechanobiology measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hessian $H_{\varphi_{1,2}} = H\{O+R\}(f^\star_{\varphi_{1,2}})$ of the inverse-problem functional with respect to the force field, evaluated at the reconstructed force map and with the physical model constraint folded in. Its inverse is the posterior covariance of the Gaussian random variable $\tilde{f}|\varphi_{1,2}$; its eigenvectors generate the "Main Credible Alternatives" that visualize the credible region; and its quadratic form $(f - f^\star)^\top H (f - f^\star)$ is the chi-squared statistic that runs all three hypothesis tests. Because the Hessian's spectrum decays rapidly, the paper computes $H^{-1}$ through a low-rank randomized generalized eigenvalue approximation rather than forming the matrix explicitly.

What would settle it

Run the reconstruction on simulated traction force microscopy images with known ground-truth forces and controlled Gaussian noise, and check whether the 95% credible regions contain the truth in about 95% of trials; repeat with the substrate stiffness or viscosity set to a wrong value and observe whether coverage falls below the nominal level. Undercoverage in the model-mismatch case would confirm that the error bars are only as good as the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a force map reconstructed from two images via the one-step inverse problem $f^\star = \arg\min_f \{O\{v;\varphi_{1,2}\}+R\{f\}\}$ subject to $m(v;f)=0$ is not a bare estimate but the mean of a Gaussian posterior. Under Gaussian image noise and a linear model, the posterior is $N(f^\star_{\varphi_{1,2}}, H^{-1}_{\varphi_{1,2}})$ with $H$ the Hessian of the energy with respect to $f$. Everything else follows from this: smallest credible regions are chi-squared ellipsoids, and testing whether a difference, a background, or an inpainted feature lies inside or outside that ellipsoid yields a p-value via the chi-squared statistic. On traction force microscopy and active-nematic data the method reports spatially varying error bars and distinguishes significant from non-significant force changes and force patches.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the physical model is known exactly, linear, and correctly parameterized, and that all error is additive Gaussian image noise with known variance; every reported error bar and p-value is computed from this premise alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Traction force microscopy and active-nematic force maps can be reported with a vectorial standard deviation per pixel, so regions of low bead density or weak gradient show larger uncertainty.
  • A single experiment can answer whether a force pattern changed after an event, whether a measurement differs from background, or whether a local force patch is a genuine feature, each with an $\alpha$-level and p-value.
  • The same construction extends to any image-based mechanobiology technique whose model fits the scheme: elastic solids, Stokes fluids, viscoelastic materials, and surface-tension droplets.
  • Credible-region visualization via Main Credible Alternatives gives a sensitivity map that could guide experimental design, such as bead density or imaging frame rate.
  • Replacing point nulls with epsilon-balls turns the tests into equivalence tests that combine statistical and practical significance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Gaussian-linear covariance is adopted in routine practice, the field's reliance on replicate averaging across cells could shift toward reporting uncertainty per measurement, changing how single-cell mechanobiology conclusions are drawn.
  • The same Hessian machinery could be used to compare imaging systems: the covariance shows whether a proposed microscope or scanner can resolve a target feature at a given noise level, a use the paper mentions only as a future direction.
  • Because the covariance ignores model mismatch, a natural testable extension is to add parametric uncertainty in stiffness or viscosity as an extra Gaussian layer and compare coverage on phantoms with known heterogeneous material properties.
  • The chi-squared tests assume the posterior is Gaussian; on real data with strong non-Gaussian noise or nonlinear models, the Laplacian approximation mentioned in the appendix could be checked by MCMC sampling on a single image pair.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian, one-step inverse-problem framework for image-based mechanobiology. It formulates force measurement as the minimization of an optical-flow data term plus a regularization term subject to a PDE constraint, and then derives the posterior covariance of the reconstructed force as the inverse Hessian of the objective (Eqs. 3-4). Under Gaussian noise and linear models, the posterior is Gaussian, credible regions are ellipsoids (Eq. 19), and hypothesis tests for force changes, background equivalence, and localized features are obtained by checking overlaps with these ellipsoids (Eqs. 24-31). The framework is demonstrated on traction force microscopy and active-nematic imaging data, with uncertainty visualized through variance maps and Main Credible Alternatives. The paper also discusses practical significance via equivalence balls.

Significance. If the results hold, the framework would supply a general, computationally tractable way to attach per-pixel error bars and p-values to force measurements that currently lack them. The connection to Wald tests (Appendix G), the low-rank Hessian approximation (Appendix H), and the demonstration on both solid and fluid models are valuable. The prior work in [38] provides simulated ground-truth validation of the variance, which is an important strength; the present paper extends the framework to hypothesis testing and to active nematics. Within its stated linear-Gaussian assumptions, the central derivation is standard and internally consistent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I, Eq. (4), Appendix J] The paper opens by listing model mismatch as one of three main sources of error, but the covariance in Eqs. (3)-(4) is built only from the image-data Hessian and the regularization operator; model error and parameter uncertainty (e.g., shear modulus or viscosity) never enter the reported credible regions. Appendix J explicitly defers marginalization over model error to future work. Consequently, all p-values and credible regions in the paper are conditional on the physical model m(v;f)=0 being exactly correct and on the material parameters being known. This is a legitimate scope limitation, but it should be stated in the abstract and Section I, and ideally the paper should demonstrate sensitivity of the conclusions to plausible parameter misspecification (e.g., varying E and viscosity over published ranges).
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (21)] The Bayesian justification of the hypothesis tests is not valid for point null hypotheses. When N={0} is a single point in a continuous force space, the posterior probability of N is exactly zero regardless of the data, so inequality (21) reduces to 0 ≤ α and cannot be used to reject H0. The proposed intersection with credible regions is a credible-interval exclusion rule, not a Bayesian test of a point null; a Bayes factor or a prior with mass on N would be needed. The Wald-test derivation in Appendix G is a valid frequentist interpretation, but then the α values should be presented as calibrated sampling quantities rather than posterior probabilities of H0. The manuscript should either adopt the frequentist framing consistently or justify the Bayesian point-null test.
  3. [Appendix D (Eqs. 29-31), Appendix E] The feature-significance test (Question 3) uses a null set I of inpainted force maps constructed after observing the data, and the test statistic in Eq. (31) is the minimum of a quadratic form over that data-dependent set. The comparison with a chi-squared quantile qα is only exact for a fixed, pre-specified f; taking the minimum over many candidate inpaintings (and over the range Λ in Eq. (33)) changes the null distribution and introduces a multiple-comparisons/selection effect. The paper does not account for this, nor for the uncertainty in the segmentation and inpainting procedure. Please calibrate q_hat under the null by simulation (e.g., parametric bootstrap from the fitted noise model) or define I independently of the measured images, and report the resulting p-values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'acquisition' spelled 'acquistion' (Section II), 'underlying' spelled 'underyling' (Appendix A), and 'corresponding' spelled 'correponding' (Appendix D).
  2. [Eqs. (3)-(4), (17)-(19)] The notation for the Hessian subscript is inconsistent: sometimes Hφ1,2 is used, sometimes only H; the manuscript should define the shorthand once and use it consistently.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (17)] The claim that expressions (3)-(4) are exact should be qualified, because the optical-flow term is linearized in Eq. (13); Gaussianity of the posterior holds after this approximation and under small-deformation assumptions, not for the original brightness-constancy term in Eq. (12).
  4. [Section III, Measurement Error] The sentence stating that the variance computed via (3) reflected the error between the recovered and true force refers to simulated experiments reported in [38]; since the present real-data examples have no ground truth, the text should make clear that this validation is from prior simulated work and is not repeated here.
  5. [Appendix E, Eq. (32)] The statement that the optimal inpainting parameter λ* 'can be chosen according to the noise of the measured force map' is vague; please specify the criterion (e.g., Morozov or a discrepancy principle) and state whether the reported conclusions are robust to the choice of Λ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the posterior covariance, credible regions, and chi-squared tests follow from standard Bayesian/Wald relations derived in the paper; the main caveats are a model-mismatch scope limitation and minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (1)-(4) define the MAP inverse problem and identify the posterior covariance with the inverse Hessian; Appendix A gives the Gaussian likelihood for the optical-flow data term and the regularization prior; Appendix B states the exact Gaussian posterior (17) and credible ellipsoid (19); Appendix G derives the same covariance by linear Gaussian least-squares (Eqs. (36)-(37)), so Eq. (3) is a derived relation for the stated linear-Gaussian model, not an input disguised as an output. The hypothesis tests (24), (28), and (31) are standard Wald-type or minimum-distance comparisons of the MAPs under that posterior, not fitted to make particular outcomes come out. The listed "three main sources of error—image noise, ill-posedness, and model mismatches" are not all propagated: the covariance is the inverse Hessian of the data and regularization terms only, and Appendix J's "Marginalization" defers model-error and parameter-uncertainty marginalization to future work. This means the reported error bars and p-values are conditional on the physical model m(v;f)=0 being correct; that is a scope limitation, not a circular reduction. The main self-citation, [38], supplies the TFM reformulation and a simulated ground-truth validation ("we found that the variance computed via (3) reflected the error between the recovered force f* and the true force [38]"), but the equations in this paper do not rely on [38] as a premise; they are re-derived from the likelihood and prior in Appendices A, B, and G. Thus there is at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, and the central derivation is independent of it.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard Bayesian inversion machinery plus a handful of domain choices: brightness conservation, Gaussian noise, a linear physical model, quadratic regularization, and independence of repeated measurements. The only numbers chosen for the examples are the regularization weight, noise level, inpainting lambda range, and low-rank truncation rank. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • regularization weight beta* = not reported numerically; chosen by Morozov's criterion from image noise (Appendix I)
    Covariance (3), posterior (17), and all credible regions and tests depend on R = beta L^T L; different beta changes the uncertainty envelope.
  • image noise standard deviation sigma = 12% for TFM, 15% for AN, relative to brightness mean (Appendix I)
    Enters the Gaussian likelihood (16); the covariance scales with sigma^2. Estimated from low-signal image regions, not from the force itself.
  • inpainting regularization set Lambda = Lambda = {10^k beta* | k = -2,-1,0,1,2}
    Question 3 null set I = {f^{not Z}(lambda) | lambda in Lambda} (Eq. 33) is generated from this hand-chosen set; whether a feature is significant depends on it.
  • low-rank truncation rank r = not stated; chosen so gamma_r << 1 (Fig. 5)
    The inverse Hessian (39) and hence all p-values use a rank-r approximation; the chosen r affects the credible ellipsoids.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Brightness is conserved between the two images: phi2(x) is approximately phi1(x - v(x)).
    Optical-flow data term, Eq. (12)-(13); the whole measurement starts from this assumption.
  • domain assumption Image noise is additive, Gaussian, spatially independent, with known variance sigma^2.
    Appendix A, Eq. (16); the Gaussian posterior and chi-squared tests are exact only under this noise model.
  • domain assumption The physical model m(v;f)=0 is linear and known exactly (linear elasticity for TFM, Stokes for AN).
    Eq. (15) and the AN Stokes model; the Hessian propagates only this model. Model mismatch is named in Section I but excluded from the covariance.
  • domain assumption The regularization term R(f) = beta ||L f||^2 is a Gaussian prior.
    Eq. (14) and Appendix A; it is part of the posterior covariance H^{-1}.
  • standard math The posterior of f given images is exactly Gaussian with mean f* and covariance H^{-1}.
    Appendix B, Eq. (17)-(19): follows from a linear model and Gaussian likelihood and prior; this is the mathematical backbone of all tests.
  • domain assumption The two measurements phi1,2 and phi3,4 used in Question 1 are statistically independent.
    Test statistic (24) sums the two covariances; correlated acquisitions would change the distribution and the p-values.
  • ad hoc to paper Inpainting by Eq. (32) produces a set of force maps representative of 'no feature'.
    Question 3 and Appendix E: the null set I is constructed by interpolation with a chosen lambda range, not derived from the biology or physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How accurate is mechanobiology? A statistical test of cell force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EO6HZPPV

@misc{pith2026241218406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How accurate is mechanobiology? A statistical test of cell force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EO6HZPPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18406}
}
read the original abstract

Mechanobiology is gaining more and more traction as the fundamental role of physical forces in biological function becomes clearer. Forces at the microscale are often measured indirectly using inverse problems such as Traction Force Microscopy because biological experiments are hard to access with physical probes. In contrast with the experimental nature of biology and physics, these measurements do not come with error bars, confidence regions, or p-values. The aim of this manuscript is to publicize this issue and to propose a first step towards a remedy therefor in the form of a general reconstruction framework. We also show that this opens the door to hypothesis testing of seemingly abstract experimental questions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18406 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A General Framework for Image-Based Mechanobiology. Top row: application of the framework to Traction Force Microscopy (TFM). Left to right: one image (green) of the two required for TFM capturing the fluorescent beads in the substrate with the cell (magenta) overlaid; second image (green, substrate at rest) of the two with the first one overlaid (magenta, substrate under traction) to help with the visualization of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the uncertainty of the measurements via the variance and MCAs. Top row: TFM. Left to right: fluorescence image of the beads in the substrate (grey scale) with the cell overlaid (green); variance of the measurement to be compared with the distribution of beads; measurement; and three Main Credible Alternatives (MCAs) to the measurement. Colorbar ranges: 0 − 8.2 · 10−4 µm−2 and 0 − 0.16 µm−1 . Bottom … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hypothesis tests for the significance of force changes after some event. (Question 1.) The tests show that some events are not significant enough with respect to the ill-posedness and image noise. Top row: TFM. Colorbar ranges are 0 − 0.16 µm−1 . Left to right: force maps at 0s, 40s (non-significant change), and 400 s (significant change) as the cell establishes after seeding. Bottom row: same as Top but for an AN s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hypothesis tests for the significance of features in the measurements. (Question 3.) The tests show that the existence of some force patches is uncertain when noise and ill-posedness are accounted for. Top row: TFM (range 0 − 0.16 µm−1 ). Left to right: A map of the ma…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rapid decay of the eigenvalues of the Hessian-based generalized eigenvalue problem in (40). The ordered index is simply the index of the eigenvalues after sorting them. generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problems. In particular, we use a generalized double-pass algorithm…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Reformulating Optical Flow to Solve Image-Based Inverse Problems and Quantify Uncertainty,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas and J.-C. Olivo-Marin, “Reformulating Optical Flow to Solve Image-Based Inverse Problems and Quantify Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , pp. 1–16, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Appreciating force and shape — the rise of mechanotransduction in cell biology,

    T. Iskratsch, H. Wolfenson, and M. P. Sheetz, “Appreciating force and shape — the rise of mechanotransduction in cell biology,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology , vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 825–833, Dec. 2014

    2014

  3. [2]

    Forces in cell biology,

    Editorial, “Forces in cell biology,” Nature Cell Biology , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 579–579, Jun. 2017

    2017

  4. [3]

    A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies verte- brate body axis elongation,

    A. Mongera et al., “A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies verte- brate body axis elongation,” Nature, vol. 561, no. 7723, pp. 401–405, Sep. 2018

    2018

  5. [4]

    Extracellular matrix mechanical cues regulate lipid metabolism through Lipin-1 and SREBP,

    P. Romani et al. , “Extracellular matrix mechanical cues regulate lipid metabolism through Lipin-1 and SREBP,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 338–347, Mar. 2019

    2019

  6. [5]

    Transcription upregulation via force-induced direct stretching of chromatin,

    A. Tajik et al. , “Transcription upregulation via force-induced direct stretching of chromatin,” Nature Materials, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1287– 1296, Dec. 2016

    2016

  7. [6]

    Mechanical force application to the nucleus regulates nucleocytoplasmic transport,

    I. Andreu et al., “Mechanical force application to the nucleus regulates nucleocytoplasmic transport,” Nature Cell Biology , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 896–905, Jun. 2022

    2022

  8. [7]

    May mechanobiology work forcefully for you,

    V . Marx, “May mechanobiology work forcefully for you,” Nature Methods, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1083–1086, Nov. 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Bioimage Anal- ysis and Cell Motility,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas, J.-C. Olivo-Marin, and N. Guill ´en, “Bioimage Anal- ysis and Cell Motility,” Patterns, vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Quantifying forces in cell biology,

    P. Roca-Cusachs, V . Conte, and X. Trepat, “Quantifying forces in cell biology,” Nature Cell Biology , vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 742–751, Jul. 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Measuring cell-generated forces: a guide to the available tools,

    W. J. Polacheck and C. S. Chen, “Measuring cell-generated forces: a guide to the available tools,” Nature Methods, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 415– 423, May 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Measurement of mechanical tractions exerted by cells in three-dimensional matrices,

    W. R. Legant et al. , “Measurement of mechanical tractions exerted by cells in three-dimensional matrices,” Nature Methods, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 969–971, Dec. 2010

    2010

  5. [12]

    Traction microscopy to identify force modulation in subresolution adhesions,

    S. J. Han, Y . Oak, A. Groisman, and G. Danuser, “Traction microscopy to identify force modulation in subresolution adhesions,” Nature Meth- ods, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 653–656, Jul. 2015

    2015

  6. [13]

    Three-dimensional force microscopy of cells in biopolymer networks,

    J. Steinwachs et al. , “Three-dimensional force microscopy of cells in biopolymer networks,” Nature Methods , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 171–176, Feb. 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Quantifying cell-generated mechanical forces within living embryonic tissues,

    O. Camp `as et al., “Quantifying cell-generated mechanical forces within living embryonic tissues,” Nature Methods, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 183–189, Feb. 2014

    2014

  8. [15]

    Curvature-induced defect unbinding and dynamics in active nematic toroids,

    P. W. Ellis et al., “Curvature-induced defect unbinding and dynamics in active nematic toroids,” Nature Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 85–90, Jan. 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    Inverse Measurements in Active Nematics,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas, J. Hardou ¨ın, J. Wen, J. Ign ´es-Mullol, and F. Sagu´es, “Inverse Measurements in Active Nematics,” Dec. 2023, arXiv: 2312.15553 [cond-mat, physics:physics]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A DNA-based molecular probe for optically reporting cellular traction forces,

    B. L. Blakely et al. , “A DNA-based molecular probe for optically reporting cellular traction forces,” Nature Methods, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1229–1232, Dec. 2014

    2014

  11. [18]

    In vivo quantification of spatially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues,

    F. Serwane et al., “In vivo quantification of spatially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues,” Nature Methods , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 181–186, Feb. 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Noncontact three-dimensional mapping of intra- cellular hydromechanical properties by Brillouin microscopy,

    G. Scarcelli et al. , “Noncontact three-dimensional mapping of intra- cellular hydromechanical properties by Brillouin microscopy,” Nature Methods, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1132–1134, Dec. 2015

    2015

  13. [20]

    Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology,

    R. Prevedel, A. Diz-Mu ˜noz, G. Ruocco, and G. Antonacci, “Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology,” Nature Methods , vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 969–977, Oct. 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Image-Based Elastography of Heterochromatin and Euchromatin Domains in the Deforming Cell Nucleus,

    S. Ghosh, V . C. Cuevas, B. Seelbinder, and C. P. Neu, “Image-Based Elastography of Heterochromatin and Euchromatin Domains in the Deforming Cell Nucleus,” Small, vol. 17, no. 5, p. 2006109, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Estimation of Stiffness Maps in Deforming Cells Through Optical Flow with Bounded Curvature,

    Y . Kesenci, A. Boquet-Pujadas, M. Unser, and J.-C. Olivo-Marin, “Estimation of Stiffness Maps in Deforming Cells Through Optical Flow with Bounded Curvature,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Silicon chips detect intracellular pressure changes in living cells,

    R. G ´omez-Mart´ınez et al. , “Silicon chips detect intracellular pressure changes in living cells,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 517– 521, Jul. 2013

    2013

  17. [24]

    BioFlow: a Non-Invasive, Image-Based Method to Measure Speed, Pressure and Forces inside Living Cells,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas et al. , “BioFlow: a Non-Invasive, Image-Based Method to Measure Speed, Pressure and Forces inside Living Cells,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 9178, Aug. 2017

    2017

  18. [25]

    Non-invasive perturbations of intracellular flow reveal physical principles of cell organization,

    M. Mittasch et al. , “Non-invasive perturbations of intracellular flow reveal physical principles of cell organization,” Nature Cell Biology , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 344–351, Mar. 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Cytoplasmic flows in starfish oocytes are fully determined by cortical contractions,

    N. Klughammer et al., “Cytoplasmic flows in starfish oocytes are fully determined by cortical contractions,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 14, no. 11, p. e1006588, Nov. 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Collective cell guidance by cooperative intercellular forces,

    D. T. Tambe et al., “Collective cell guidance by cooperative intercellular forces,” Nature Materials, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 469–475, Jun. 2011

    2011

  21. [28]

    4D Live Imaging and Computational Mod- eling of a Functional Gut-on-a-Chip Evaluate how Peristalsis Facili- tates Enteric Pathogen Invasion,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas et al. , “4D Live Imaging and Computational Mod- eling of a Functional Gut-on-a-Chip Evaluate how Peristalsis Facili- tates Enteric Pathogen Invasion,” Science Advances , vol. 8, no. 42, p. eabo5767, Oct. 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    Em- bryonic tissues as active foams,

    S. Kim, M. Pochitaloff, G. A. Stooke-Vaughan, and O. Camp `as, “Em- bryonic tissues as active foams,” Nature Physics , vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 859–866, Jul. 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Nuclear deformation guides chromatin reor- ganization in cardiac development and disease,

    B. Seelbinder et al. , “Nuclear deformation guides chromatin reor- ganization in cardiac development and disease,” Nature Biomedical Engineering, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1500–1516, Dec. 2021

    2021

  24. [31]

    Active hole formation in epithelioid tissues,

    J.-Q. Lv et al. , “Active hole formation in epithelioid tissues,” Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1313–1323, Aug. 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Spontaneous self-constraint in active nematic flows,

    L. C. Head et al., “Spontaneous self-constraint in active nematic flows,” Nature Physics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 492–500, Mar. 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Stiffness-dependent active wetting enables optimal collective cell durotaxis,

    M. E. Pallar `es et al., “Stiffness-dependent active wetting enables optimal collective cell durotaxis,” Nature Physics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 279–289, Feb. 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    High-resolution traction force microscopy on small focal adhesions - improved accuracy through optimal marker distribution and optical flow tracking,

    C. N. Holenstein, U. Silvan, and J. G. Snedeker, “High-resolution traction force microscopy on small focal adhesions - improved accuracy through optimal marker distribution and optical flow tracking,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 41633, Feb. 2017

    2017

  28. [35]

    Replicates and repeats—what is the difference and is it significant?

    D. L. Vaux, F. Fidler, and G. Cumming, “Replicates and repeats—what is the difference and is it significant?” EMBO reports, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 291–296, Apr. 2012

    2012

  29. [36]

    Accuracy and precision in quantitative fluorescence microscopy,

    J. C. Waters, “Accuracy and precision in quantitative fluorescence microscopy,” Journal of Cell Biology , vol. 185, no. 7, pp. 1135–1148, Jun. 2009

    2009

  30. [37]

    On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of AI,

    V . Antun, F. Renna, C. Poon, B. Adcock, and A. C. Hansen, “On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of AI,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 117, no. 48, pp. 30 088–30 095, Dec. 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Multiple Variational Image Assimilation for Accessible Micro- Elastography,

    ——, “Multiple Variational Image Assimilation for Accessible Micro- Elastography,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 1131, no. 1, p. 012014, Nov. 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    C. P. Robert, The Bayesian Choice , ser. Springer Texts in Statistics. New York, NY: Springer, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Casella and R

    G. Casella and R. Berger, Statistical Inference , 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2002

    2002

  34. [42]

    Reconnecting p-Value and Posterior Probability Under One- and Two-Sided Tests,

    H. Shi and G. Yin, “Reconnecting p-Value and Posterior Probability Under One- and Two-Sided Tests,” The American Statistician , vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 265–275, Jul. 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    The roles, challenges, and merits of the p value,

    O. Y . Ch ´en et al. , “The roles, challenges, and merits of the p value,” Patterns, vol. 4, no. 12, p. 100878, Dec. 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Full L1-regularized Traction Force Microscopy over whole cells,

    A. Su ˜n´e-Au˜n´on et al., “Full L1-regularized Traction Force Microscopy over whole cells,” BMC Bioinformatics , vol. 18, no. 1, p. 365, Aug. 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Free Form Deformation–Based Image Registra- tion Improves Accuracy of Traction Force Microscopy,

    A. Jorge-Pe ˜nas et al., “Free Form Deformation–Based Image Registra- tion Improves Accuracy of Traction Force Microscopy,” PLOS ONE , vol. 10, no. 12, p. e0144184, Dec. 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Self-organized dynamics and the transition to turbulence of confined active nematics,

    A. Opathalage et al. , “Self-organized dynamics and the transition to turbulence of confined active nematics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 116, no. 11, pp. 4788–4797, Mar. 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Super-resolution microscopy demystified,

    L. Schermelleh et al. , “Super-resolution microscopy demystified,” Na- ture Cell Biology , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 72–84, Jan. 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Analysis of the sparse super resolution limit using the Cram´er-Rao lower bound,

    M. Hockmann, “Analysis of the sparse super resolution limit using the Cram´er-Rao lower bound,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    First PET Investigation of the Human Brain at 2 µL Resolution with the Ultra-High-Resolution (UHR) scanner,

    V . Doyon et al. , “First PET Investigation of the Human Brain at 2 µL Resolution with the Ultra-High-Resolution (UHR) scanner,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 64, no. supplement 1, pp. P726–P726, Jun. 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    A Silicon-Pixel Paradigm for PET,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas et al. , “A Silicon-Pixel Paradigm for PET,” IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Fast and sensitive GCaMP calcium indicators for imaging neural populations,

    Y . Zhang et al. , “Fast and sensitive GCaMP calcium indicators for imaging neural populations,” Nature, vol. 615, no. 7954, pp. 884–891, Mar. 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Deep-prior ODEs augment fluorescence imaging with chemical sensors,

    T.-a. Pham, A. Boquet-Pujadas, S. Mondal, M. Unser, and G. Barbas- tathis, “Deep-prior ODEs augment fluorescence imaging with chemical sensors,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 9172, Oct. 2024. 15

    2024

  45. [53]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters , vol. 875, no. 1, p. L4, Apr. 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Highly Accurate Optic Flow Computation with Theoretically Justified Warping,

    N. Papenberg, A. Bruhn, T. Brox, S. Didas, and J. Weickert, “Highly Accurate Optic Flow Computation with Theoretically Justified Warping,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 141–158, Apr. 2006

    2006

  47. [55]

    Testing a Point Null Hypothesis: The Irreconcilability of P Values and Evidence,

    J. O. Berger and T. Sellke, “Testing a Point Null Hypothesis: The Irreconcilability of P Values and Evidence,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 82, no. 397, pp. 112–122, 1987

    1987

  48. [56]

    Reconciling Bayesian and Frequentist Evidence in the One-Sided Testing Problem,

    G. Casella and R. L. Berger, “Reconciling Bayesian and Frequentist Evidence in the One-Sided Testing Problem,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 82, no. 397, pp. 106–111, 1987

    1987

  49. [57]

    Other Challenging Applications,

    “Other Challenging Applications,” in Mathematical Problems in Image Processing: Partial Differential Equations and the Calculus of Varia- tions, ser. Applied Mathematical Sciences, G. Aubert and P. Kornprobst, Eds. New York, NY: Springer, 2006, pp. 213–305

    2006

  50. [58]

    Sample Size and Chi-Squared Test of Fit—A Comparison Between a Random Sample Approach and a Chi-Square Value Adjust- ment Method Using Swedish Adolescent Data,

    D. Bergh, “Sample Size and Chi-Squared Test of Fit—A Comparison Between a Random Sample Approach and a Chi-Square Value Adjust- ment Method Using Swedish Adolescent Data,” in Pacific Rim Objec- tive Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2014 Conference Proceedings , Q. Zhang and H. Ya...

    2014

  51. [59]

    Research Commentary—Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p-Value Problem,

    M. Lin, H. C. Lucas, and G. Shmueli, “Research Commentary—Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p-Value Problem,” Information Systems Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 906–917, Dec. 2013

    2013

  52. [60]

    The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values,

    D. Colquhoun, “The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values,” Royal Society Open Science, vol. 4, no. 12, p. 171085, Dec. 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Cor- relations, and Meta-Analyses,

    D. Lakens, “Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Cor- relations, and Meta-Analyses,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 355–362, May 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum?

    L. G. Halsey, “The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum?” Biology Letters, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 20190174, May 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    A Method for Finding Projections onto the Intersection of Convex Sets in Hilbert Spaces,

    J. P. Boyle and R. L. Dykstra, “A Method for Finding Projections onto the Intersection of Convex Sets in Hilbert Spaces,” in Advances in Order Restricted Statistical Inference , R. Dykstra, T. Robertson, and F. T. Wright, Eds. New York, NY: Springer, 1986, pp. 28–47

    1986

  56. [64]

    A direct method for checking overlap of two hyperellipsoids,

    I. Gilitschenski and U. D. Hanebeck, “A direct method for checking overlap of two hyperellipsoids,” in 2014 Sensor Data Fusion: Trends, Solutions, Applications (SDF) , Oct. 2014, pp. 1–6

    2014

  57. [65]

    On intersection volumes of confidence hyper-ellipsoids and two geometric Monte Carlo methods,

    N. Rabiei and E. G. Saleeby, “On intersection volumes of confidence hyper-ellipsoids and two geometric Monte Carlo methods,” Monte Carlo Methods and Applications , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 153–167, Jun. 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    The FEniCS Project Version 1.5,

    M. Alnæs et al., “The FEniCS Project Version 1.5,” Archive of Numer- ical Software, vol. 3, no. 100, Dec. 2015, number: 100

    2015

  59. [67]

    hIPPYlib: An Extensible Software Framework for Large-Scale Inverse Problems,

    U. Villa, N. Petra, and O. Ghattas, “hIPPYlib: An Extensible Software Framework for Large-Scale Inverse Problems,” Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 3, no. 30, p. 940, Oct. 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    CGAL Editorial Board, 2024

    The CGAL Project, CGAL User and Reference Manual, 6th ed. CGAL Editorial Board, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Criteria for Selection of Regularization Parameter,

    V . A. Morozov, “Criteria for Selection of Regularization Parameter,” in Methods for Solving Incorrectly Posed Problems , V . A. Morozov, Ed. New York, NY: Springer, 1984, pp. 32–64

    1984

  62. [70]

    Borz `ı and V

    A. Borz `ı and V . Schulz, Computational Optimization of Systems Gov- erned by Partial Differential Equations . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2011

    2011

  63. [71]

    Optimal Low-rank Approximations of Bayesian Lin- ear Inverse Problems,

    A. Spantini et al., “Optimal Low-rank Approximations of Bayesian Lin- ear Inverse Problems,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. A2451–A2487, Jan. 2015

    2015

  64. [72]

    Randomized algorithms for generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problems with application to computing Karhunen–Lo`eve expansion,

    A. K. Saibaba, J. Lee, and P. K. Kitanidis, “Randomized algorithms for generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problems with application to computing Karhunen–Lo`eve expansion,” Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 314–339, 2016

    2016

  65. [73]

    Finding Structure with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions,

    N. Halko, P. G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp, “Finding Structure with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions,” SIAM Review , vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 217–288, Jan. 2011

    2011

  66. [74]

    High-Resolution, Highly-Integrated Traction Force Microscopy Software,

    N. Mittal and S. J. Han, “High-Resolution, Highly-Integrated Traction Force Microscopy Software,” Current Protocols, vol. 1, no. 9, p. e233, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Myosin-independent stiffness sensing by fibroblasts is regulated by the viscoelasticity of flowing actin,

    N. Mittal et al. , “Myosin-independent stiffness sensing by fibroblasts is regulated by the viscoelasticity of flowing actin,” Communications Materials, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–19, Jan. 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Nuevos mecanismos de regulaci ´on de las funciones celulares de la prote ´ına contr ´actil miosina II no muscular,

    R. Aguilar-Cuenca, “Nuevos mecanismos de regulaci ´on de las funciones celulares de la prote ´ına contr ´actil miosina II no muscular,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Aut ´onoma de Madrid, 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Snakes: Active contour models,

    M. Kass, A. Witkin, and D. Terzopoulos, “Snakes: Active contour models,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 321–331, Jan. 1988

    1988

  70. [78]

    A Protocol to Quantify Cellular Morphodynamics: From Cell Labelling to Automatic Image Analysis,

    M. Manich, A. Boquet-Pujadas, S. Dallongeville, N. Guillen, and J.-C. Olivo-Marin, “A Protocol to Quantify Cellular Morphodynamics: From Cell Labelling to Automatic Image Analysis,” in Eukaryome Impact on Human Intestine Homeostasis and Mucosal Immunology . Cham: Springer Inte...

    2020

  71. [79]

    A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems,

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems,” SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 183–202, Jan. 2009

    2009

  72. [80]

    Hessian Schatten-Norm Regularization for Linear Inverse Problems,

    S. Lefkimmiatis, J. P. Ward, and M. Unser, “Hessian Schatten-Norm Regularization for Linear Inverse Problems,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1873–1888, May 2013

    2013

  73. [81]

    Sensitivity-Aware Density Estimation in Multiple Dimensions,

    A. Boquet-Pujadas, P. d. A. Pla, and M. Unser, “Sensitivity-Aware Density Estimation in Multiple Dimensions,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    A Box-Spline Frame- work for Inverse Problems With Continuous-Domain Sparsity Con- straints,

    M. Pourya, A. Boquet-Pujadas, and M. Unser, “A Box-Spline Frame- work for Inverse Problems With Continuous-Domain Sparsity Con- straints,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging , vol. 10, pp. 790–805, 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Testing for High-Dimensional Statistical Models,

    A. Javanmard and A. Montanari, “Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Testing for High-Dimensional Statistical Models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 26. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013

    2013

  76. [84]

    Concentration of the Information in Data with Log-Concave Distributions,

    S. Bobkov and M. Madiman, “Concentration of the Information in Data with Log-Concave Distributions,” The Annals of Probability , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1528–1543, 2011

    2011

  77. [85]

    On Projection Algorithms for Solving Convex Feasibility Problems,

    H. H. Bauschke and J. M. Borwein, “On Projection Algorithms for Solving Convex Feasibility Problems,” SIAM Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 367–426, Sep. 1996

    1996

  78. [86]

    The Bayes/Non-Bayes Compromise: A Brief Review,

    I. J. Good, “The Bayes/Non-Bayes Compromise: A Brief Review,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 87, no. 419, pp. 597–606, Sep. 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.