Analysis of ependymal ciliary beat pattern and beat frequency using high speed imaging: comparison with the photomultiplier and photodiode methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare beat frequency measurements of ependymal cilia made by digital high speed imaging to those obtained using the photomultiplier and modified photodiode techniques. Using high speed video analysis the relationship of the power and recover strokes was also determined. METHODS: Ciliated strips of ependyma attached to slices from the brain of Wistar rats were incubated at 30°C and observed using a ×50 water immersion lens. Ciliary beat frequency was measured using each of the three techniques: the high speed video, photodiode and photomultiplier. Readings were repeated after 30 minutes incubation at 37°C. Ependymal cilia were observed in slow motion and the precise movement of cilia during the recovery stroke relative to the path travelled during the power stroke was measured. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence intervals) beat frequencies determined by the high speed video, photomultiplier and photodiode at 30°C were 27.7 (26.6 to 28.8), 25.5 (24.4 to 26.6) and 20.8 (20.4 to 21.3) Hz, respectively. The mean (95% confidence intervals) beat frequencies determined by the high speed video, photomultiplier and photodiode at 37°C were 36.4 (34 to 39.5), 38.4 (36.8 to 39.9) and 18.8 (16.9 to 20.5) Hz. The inter and intra observer reliability for measurement of ciliary beat frequency was 3.8% and 1%, respectively. Ependymal cilia were observed to move in a planar fashion during the power and recovery strokes with a maximum deviation to the right of the midline of 12.1(11.8 to 13.0)° during the power stroke and 12.6(11.6 to 13.6)° to the left of the midline during the recovery stroke. CONCLUSION: The photodiode technique greatly underestimates ciliary beat frequency and should not be used to measure ependymal ciliary beat frequency at the temperatures studied. Ciliary beat frequency from the high speed video and photomultiplier techniques cannot be used interchangeably. Ependymal cilia had minimal deviation to the right side during their power stroke and to the left during the recovery stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".