MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113531253 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072039

A Method for 3D Immunostaining and Optical Imaging of the Mouse Brain Demonstrated in Neural Progenitor Cells

2013· article· en· W2113531253 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline A. Gleave, Jason P. Lerch, R. Mark Henkelman, Brian J. Nieman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersGovernment of OntarioOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsImmunostainingNestinPathologyProgenitor cellDoublecortinGlial fibrillary acidic proteinForebrainNeural stem cellBiologyStainingNeuroscienceImmunohistochemistryStem cellCell biologyMedicineHippocampusCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to understand changes in cell distribution that occur as a part of disease progression. This is typically achieved using standard sectioning and immunostaining, however, many structures and cell distribution patterns are not readily appreciated in two-dimensions, including the distribution of neural stem and progenitor cells in the mouse forebrain. Three-dimensional immunostaining in the mouse brain has been hampered by poor penetration. For this reason, we have developed a method that allows for entire hemispheres of the mouse brain to be stained using commercially available antibodies. Brains stained for glial fibrillary acidic protein, doublecortin and nestin were imaged in three-dimensions using optical projection tomography and serial two-photon tomography. This staining method is simple, using a combination of heat, time and specimen preparation procedures readily available, so that it can be easily implemented without the need for specialized equipment, making it accessible to most laboratories.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207