Find anything
Search
with natural language
Type a half-remembered phrase, a concept, or a question from six months ago. kbox searches across every paper, note, table, and annotation in your library — instantly.
- Natural language — no exact title needed
- Searches papers, notes, tables, and citations together
- Finds your annotations and where you left off
Paper
ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis
Berg, S., Kutra, D., Kroeger, T. et al.
We present ilastik, an easy-to-use interactive tool that brings machine-learning-based (bio)image analysis to end users without substantial computational expertise. It contains pre-defined workflows for image segmentation, object classification, counting and tracking. Users adapt the workflows to the problem at hand by interactively providing sparse training annotations for a nonlinear classifier. ilastik can process data in up to five dimensions (3D, time and number of channels). Its computational back end runs operations on-demand wherever possible, allowing for interactive prediction on data larger than RAM. Once the classifiers are trained, ilastik workflows can be applied to new data from the command line without further user interaction. We describe all ilastik workflows in detail, including three case studies and a discussion on the expected performance.
Your note
Research Ideas: framed to connect directly with open problems in bioimage analysis, interactive machine learning, scalable computation, and reproducible workflows
Strengths
Accessible interactive ML for bioimage analysis without coding. Sparse annotation (scribbles) lowers labeling burden. Supports segmentation, object classification, counting, and tracking across up to 5D data (3D + time + channels). Out-of-core, on-demand computation enables interactive prediction on datasets larger than RAM. Trained workflows can be exported and run headlessly via command line for reproducible batch processing.
Research Directions
• Active learning for interactive annotation: uncertainty-guided scribble suggestions to reduce labeling time.
• Self-supervised pretraining for 3D microscopy to reduce annotation burden.
• Hybrid deep feature integration: plug pretrained CNN/ViT features into ilastik classifier pipeline.
• Multi-resolution, coarse-to-fine inference for terabyte-scale datasets.
• Uncertainty-aware overlays to guide user corrections in real time.
• Systematic evaluation of annotation granularity (clicks vs scribbles vs outlines).
• Cross-dataset transfer and domain adaptation benchmarking.
• Standardized 5D interactive segmentation benchmark suite.
Concerns / Gaps
Limited exploration of model uncertainty calibration. Feature engineering remains largely hand-crafted. Generalization across modalities unclear. Human-in-the-loop efficiency not rigorously quantified. Scalability tradeoffs vs deep end-to-end models underexplored.
Last left off
Want to examine classifier type (random forest?) and feature stack in detail; compare to modern deep segmentation baselines and evaluate computational complexity scaling with dataset size.
Make anything
AI pulls out information & categorizes,
for everything you create.
Papers, notes, ideas, tables, and citations — all in one workspace. Organized by project. Searchable. Linked. Ready to reuse.
ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis
Nature Methods · 2019
Research directions: active learning + uncertainty
Note · Jan 14
Model performance — RF vs LGBM solubility benchmarks
Extracted table
Predicting aqueous and organic solubilities with ML
ChemRxiv · 2023
Cross-modality domain adaptation benchmarking study
Generated idea
Key claim: compare Rieke et al. 2020 methodology section
Annotation · p.3
Supercharge creation
Chat. Deep research.
Discover what's next.
Ask your project a question and get back research directions, hypotheses, and open gaps — grounded in your actual papers. Not generic. Not hallucinated.
- AI research ideas from your actual library
- Chat with one paper or your whole project
- Citations in APA, MLA, Chicago, BibTeX — one click
- Tables auto-extracted from any PDF
What are the main disagreements between my papers on off-target effects?
I found three distinct positions across your library:
Doench et al. 2014 and Hart et al. 2015 argue off-target effects are predictable from sequence context and can be minimized with guide RNA design.
Tsai et al. 2015 is more cautious — their GUIDE-seq data shows unexpected off-target sites missed by computational prediction.
Anzalone et al. 2019 sidesteps the debate entirely by using prime editing, which has a fundamentally different mechanism with far fewer off-targets.
Want me to pull the supporting evidence from each paper?
Which paper makes the strongest case for base editing?
Komor et al. 2016 makes the strongest case — they demonstrate base editing with 15–75% efficiency and minimal indels across 12 genomic loci. Two papers in your library build directly on this: Gaudelli et al. 2017 extends it to A·T→G·C conversions, and Anzalone et al. 2019 cites it as the foundation for prime editing.
How it works
AI on every layer.
From the moment you upload a paper to the moment you submit — AI is working.
Processing
Extracting
Recommending
Connecting
Summarizing
Saving
Intelligent research tools to accelerate your workflow
Discover
Connect papers, data, topics
like never before.
Your papers, notes, and ideas form a living knowledge network. Hover a node. Find the gap. Discover the paper you didn't know you needed.
Knowledge graph view available on desktop
Everything in one place.
From ingestion to publication — kbox is the only research tool you need.
Natural language search
PDF highlights & notes
AI research ideas
Table extraction
Chat with your papers
Citation generation
Knowledge graph
Project workspace
