MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039259508 · doi:10.1186/s12917-020-02444-x

Development of a computer-based quantification method for immunohistochemically-stained tissues and its application to study mast cells in equine wound healing (proof of concept)

2020· article· en· W3039259508 on OpenAlexafffund
Valérie Dubuc, Sheila Laverty, Hélène Richard, Monique Doré, Christine L. Theoret

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Veterinary Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMast cells and histamine
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPathologyWound healingMedicineMast (botany)ImmunohistochemistryMast cellBiomedical engineeringSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the scientific community to use computer-based software programs for the quantification of cells during physiological and pathophysiological processes. Drawbacks of computer-based methods currently used to quantify immunohistochemical staining are the complexity of use, expense of software and overly-simplified descriptions of protocol thereby limiting reproducibility. The precise role of mast cells in equine cutaneous wound healing is unknown. Given the contribution of mast cells to the chronic inflammation observed in human keloid, a pathology similar to exuberant granulation tissue (EGT) in horses, mast cells might be present in high numbers in equine limb wounds predisposed to EGT. The main goal of this study was to develop a reliable and reproducible quantification method for immunostained tissues using a computer software that is widely available, at no cost, to the scientific community. A secondary goal was to conduct a proof of concept using the newly-established method to quantify mast cells during wound healing at different anatomical sites (body and limb) in horses to see if a different pattern is observed in limb wounds, which are predisposed to EGT. RESULTS: A good intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, 0.67 p < 0.05) was found between the computer-based ImageJ method and manual counting. An excellent intra-operator ICC of 0.90 (p < 0.01) was found for the ImageJ quantification method while a good interoperator ICC of 0.69 (p < 0.01) was measured. No significant difference was observed between the variation of the ImageJ and that of the manual counting method. Mast cells were localized below the epidermis, around cutaneous appendages and blood vessels. Mast cell numbers did not differ significantly in relation to anatomical location or time of healing. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based quantification method developed is reliable, reproducible, available, cost-free and could be used to study different physiological and pathological processes using immunohistochemistry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Veterinary ResearchSame topicMast cells and histamineFrench-language works237,207