Quantification of surviving neurons after contusion, dislocation, and distraction spinal cord injuries using automated methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes and validates an automated method for counting neurons in spinal cord injury (SCI) and then uses it to examine and compare the surviving cells in common types of SCI mechanisms. Moderate contusion, dislocation, and distraction SCIs were surgically induced in Sprague Dawley male rats (n = 6 for each type of injury). Their spinal cords were harvested 8 weeks post injury with 5 normal weight-matched rats. The spinal cords were cut, stained with anti-NeuN antibody and fluorescent Nissl, and imaged in the dorsal and ventral horns at various distances to the epicenter. Neurons in the images were automatically counted using an algorithm that was designed to filter non-soma-like objects based on morphological characteristics (size, solidity, circular pattern) and check the remaining objects for the double-stained nucleus/cell body features (brightness variation, brightness distribution, color). To validate the automated method, some of the images were randomly selected for manual counting. The number of surviving cells that were automatically measured by the algorithm was found to be correlated with the values that were manually measured by 2 observers ( P < .001) with similar differences ( P > .05). Neurons in the dorsal and ventral horns were reduced after the SCIs ( P < .05). Dislocation and distraction, respectively, caused the most severe damage to the ventral horn neurons especially near the epicenter and the most extensive and uniform damage to the dorsal horn neurons ( P < .05). Our method was proved to be reliable, which is suitable for studying different types of SCI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".