Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
SpineTool 2.0: A Deep Learning Platform with an Interactive User Interface for Dendritic Spine Segmentation and Morphological Analysis
Antonova D, Gurenko S, Pegova M, Ustinova A, Shteynberg G, Chukanov V, Pchitskaya E.. Research Square, 2026-10-21
Topic: Disease mechanisms in lab and animal studies
Quantitative analysis of dendritic spine morphology is central to understanding synaptic function and its disruption in neurological disease, yet reliable measurement depends on accurate segmentation of spines from fluorescence microscopy images — a task still limited by faint or discontinuous spine necks and by tools that require extensive manual correction. Here we present SpineTool 2.0, an integrated software platform that combines a cascade of deep learning-based segmentation models four three-dimensional U-Net networks performing dendrite segmentation, neck reconstruction, resolution enhancement, and spine segmentation with an interactive, Napari-based user interface that provides three-dimensional visualization together with a comprehensive set of manual correction, editing, and project-management tools. The platform supports both fully automatic (AI-based) and semi-automatic workflows across heterogeneous in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo confocal and two-photon datasets without dataset-specific retraining. Benchmarked against existing dendritic segmentation tools, SpineTool 2.0 achieves markedly higher accuracy in both dendritic shaft and individual spine segmentation, while substantially reducing the loss of spine necks and the merging of adjacent spines that limit current approaches. Applied to in vitro primary hippocampal neurons from a low-dose amyloid-β model of Alzheimer’s disease, SpineTool 2.0 detected a larger and more complete population of dendritic spines than the original SpineTool and revealed statistically significant morphological changes under Aβ exposure that had previously gone undetected. These results show that improvements in automatic segmentation accuracy can directly alter the biological conclusions drawn from morphometric analysis, underscoring the need for accurate, correctable segmentation tools in synaptic biology. SpineTool 2.0, together with its training and test datasets, is released as open-source software.
Key findings
- Applied to in vitro primary hippocampal neurons from a low-dose amyloid-β model of Alzheimer’s disease, SpineTool 2.0 detected a larger and more complete population of dendritic spines than the original SpineTool and revealed statistically significant morphological changes under Aβ exposure that had previously gone undetected.
- These results show that improvements in automatic segmentation accuracy can directly alter the biological conclusions drawn from morphometric analysis, underscoring the need for accurate, correctable segmentation tools in synaptic biology.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Antonova, D., Gurenko, S., Pegova, M., Ustinova, A., Shteynberg, G., Chukanov, V., et al. (2026). SpineTool 2.0: A Deep Learning Platform with an Interactive User Interface for Dendritic Spine Segmentation and Morphological Analysis. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10996498/v1
Vancouver
Antonova D, Gurenko S, Pegova M, Ustinova A, Shteynberg G, Chukanov V, et al. SpineTool 2.0: A Deep Learning Platform with an Interactive User Interface for Dendritic Spine Segmentation and Morphological Analysis. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10996498/v1.
BibTeX
@article{antonova2026-e8cd5270,
author = {Antonova, D. and Gurenko, S. and Pegova, M. and Ustinova, A. and Shteynberg, G. and Chukanov, V. and Pchitskaya, E.},
title = {{SpineTool 2.0: A Deep Learning Platform with an Interactive User Interface for Dendritic Spine Segmentation and Morphological Analysis}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10996498/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10996498/v1}
}