Image Analysis Protocol for Detecting and Counting Viable and Inviable Pollen Grains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating total pollen number and viability is labor intensive and time consuming. Nevertheless the information is crucial for a range of plant biologists from plant breeders to evolutionary biologists. Viability is determined by dye staining and counting colored (viable) and transparent (inviable) grains under a compound microscope. Existing protocols have been standardized to speed up total pollen counts but their success in determining viability is rather limited because they do not incorporate staining techniques. Some of the published protocols that determine viability do so based on statistical methods but focus on just one parameter such as pollen diameter requiring manual standardization to generate two distinct size distributions for viable and inviable pollen. We demonstrate a digital image processing protocol that can count viable and inviable pollen by distinguishing colored and transparent objects in the image space, saving valuable labor and time. Using pollen grains from two plants, Collinsia heterophylla and Brassica napus, we show that differences between viable and inviable pollen are best described by a complex measure, the grain shape. By measuring several parameters such as area, length, width, circularity and elongation, while retaining all the advantages of traditional staining process, our procedure increases the accuracy of viability estimates. The only drawback of our protocol is that it uses the NIS elements a software specific to Nikon instruments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.011 |
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".