MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stereological length estimation using spherical probes

2002· article· en· W2028574924 on OpenAlexaff
Peter R. Mouton, A.M. Gokhale, Nicole L. Ward, Mark J. West

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsIsotropySampling (signal processing)Cube (algebra)Orientation (vector space)GeometryMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lineal structures in biological tissue support a wide variety of physiological functions, including membrane stabilization, vascular perfusion, and cell-to-cell communication. In 1953, Smith and Guttman demonstrated a stereological method to estimate the total length density (Lv) of linear objects based on random intersections with a two-dimensional sampling probe. Several methods have been developed to ensure the required isotropy of object-probe intersections, including isotropic-uniform-random (IUR) sections, vertical-uniform-random (VUR) slices, and isotropic virtual planes. The disadvantages of these methods are the requirements for inconvenient section orientations (IUR, VUR) or complex counting rules at multiple focal planes (isotropic virtual planes). To overcome these limitations we report a convenient and straightforward approach to estimate Lv and total length, L, for linear objects on tissue sections cut at any arbitrary orientation. The approach presented here uses spherical probes that are inherently isotropic, combined with unbiased fractionator sampling, to demonstrate total L estimation for thin nerve fibres in dorsal hippocampus of the mouse brain.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations206
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MicroscopySame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207