MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870286356 · doi:10.1002/0471142301.ns0123s71

Fixation and Immunolabeling of Brain Slices: SNAPSHOT Method

2015· article· en· W1870286356 on OpenAlexafffund
Lasse Dissing‐Olesen, Brian A. MacVicar

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunolabelingSnapshot (computer storage)CytoarchitectureFixation (population genetics)NeuroscienceComputer scienceBiologyPathologyMedicineImmunohistochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute brain slices are widely used in neuroscience because this preparation enables pharmacological interventions in a timely manner, similar to what is currently done in cultured cell studies, while preserving the natural cytoarchitecture. However, compared with cells in culture and thin cryostat sections, acute brain slices are not commonly used for immunolabeling because of poor fixation and antibody penetration. Thus, we have established a novel protocol to overcome these issues. We named this protocol SNAPSHOT (StaiNing of dynAmic ProcesseS in HOt-fixed Tissue) because it describes a simple approach for preserving the morphology of fine dynamic cellular processes at the exact time of fixation and for improving the penetration of antibodies. We have previously shown that SNAPSHOT preserves the ultrastructure of the tissue and allows for a uniform immunolabeling throughout a 300 μm thick slice. SNAPSHOT has recently proven to be beneficial in addressing several unique biological questions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in NeuroscienceSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207