Calibration of Wide-Field Deconvolution Microscopy for Quantitative Fluorescence Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deconvolution enhances contrast in fluorescence microscopy images, especially in low-contrast, high-background wide-field microscope images, improving characterization of features within the sample. Deconvolution can also be combined with other imaging modalities, such as confocal microscopy, and most software programs seek to improve resolution as well as contrast. Quantitative image analyses require instrument calibration and with deconvolution, necessitate that this process itself preserves the relative quantitative relationships between fluorescence intensities. To ensure that the quantitative nature of the data remains unaltered, deconvolution algorithms need to be tested thoroughly. This study investigated whether the deconvolution algorithms in AutoQuant X3 preserve relative quantitative intensity data. InSpeck Green calibration microspheres were prepared for imaging, z-stacks were collected using a wide-field microscope, and the images were deconvolved using the iterative deconvolution algorithms with default settings. Afterwards, the mean intensities and volumes of microspheres in the original and the deconvolved images were measured. Deconvolved data sets showed higher average microsphere intensities and smaller volumes than the original wide-field data sets. In original and deconvolved data sets, intensity means showed linear relationships with the relative microsphere intensities given by the manufacturer. Importantly, upon normalization, the trend lines were found to have similar slopes. In original and deconvolved images, the volumes of the microspheres were quite uniform for all relative microsphere intensities. We were able to show that AutoQuant X3 deconvolution software data are quantitative. In general, the protocol presented can be used to calibrate any fluorescence microscope or image processing and analysis procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".